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 one official narrative in which everyone is mandated to believe in. Especially since this particular narrative contradicts all normal logic and factual evidence, for instance, the fundamental laws of physics and gravity, as in the case of the official 9/11 narrative.
But Caitlin also believes that in a world without official narratives then the anthropogenic climate-change narrative that global warming is caused by human activities would most likely be more successful in the public realm than the narrative of the skeptics.
I happen to disagree.
My guess would be that the anthropogenic-climate-change-narrative she mentioned would not win out in an open discourse of ideas.
This narrative is just the official European one and, in contrast to what most people in the world believe, this particular narrative did not actually start with green or left activism but in reality with the ultra-reactionary Margaret Thatcher throwing money at the Royal Society of Science. This happened after she heard about the theories of some obscure Swedish meteorologist. With her or rather the British taxpayer’s money she demanded of the Society to find (or maybe create) evidence to support the view that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would eventually heat up the planet to catastrophic levels.
Thatcher’s actual motives at the time were that she didn’t like British energy being dependent on coal miners (many Conservatives at the time blamed their defeat at the previous election on the strike of the coal-miners’ union). Neither did she want to be dependent on Arab countries, which recently had created the OPEC cartel demanding highly increased oil-prices.
Instead, Thatcher wanted to promote nuclear power as an alternative energy resource, which in reality was -because of safety costs- far more expensive and on top of it since the Tchernobyl disaster had also become highly unpopular. As extra bonus for Thatcher and her backers’ nuclear power creation could also be diverted to create fuel for more atomic bombs.
In later years Thatcher herself became a skeptic of the climate change movement since she beyond all others knew the real origins and political reasons for it all. It seems that her machinations didn’t work out the way she had hoped for, they didn’t weaken American power in favor of British power as much as she hoped for, instead they strengthened continental European (mostly German) power to the disadvantage of the UK.
My guess is, that since ‘preventing the up-coming climate catastrophe’ has long been considered to be a left-wing progressive issue many good people all over the world did never even bother to check out the other side of the argument, for they consider the other side to be exclusively funded by the evil oil corporations.
I consider myself very much left-wing in many ways: 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 decentralization of political power.
I also believe that alternative energy production by solar- or wind-power or using methane gas made from animal or human waste is a very good thing. (On the other hand I see the use of agricultural land to produce fuel, literally taking food away from the poorest of the poor starving them to death as absolutely reprehensible).
The increased use of alternative energy produced by locally available resources, however, 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- as well as 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 up to 5 times higher during the age of the dinosaurs mostly because of volcanic activity, and still, our 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. Suggested is a feed-back
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 courts of law, while new substitutes as basis for the differing computer models predicting future warming are kind of black boxes (in other words too complex for definite predictions, therefore contradicting each other and sometimes even kept secret so as not to be challenged by the public, and 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 initiators for the idea of an Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) , like a certain Maurice Strong were fanatic sectarians and misanthropes connected to the Club of Rome. That one is a Neo-Malthusian think-tank with a large illustrious membership of the political, media and financial elites of the world. The club is most famous for its publications
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.
It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
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.