Let's Call Climate Change What It Really Is—Violence
If you're poor, the only way you're likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.
But if you're tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you're the leader of a country, you candeclare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.
[Can you clearly see the socialist tactic of class warfare in the rhetoric, pitting numerous poor masses against the rich to create social division and chaos – possibly erupting to mass demonstrations, violence, and then on to revolution?]
So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.
[A new term has been created – carbon barons – vaguely similar to the hated “robber barons” of old and the socialist unions fight to control labor.]
Or so I thought when I received a press release last week from a climate group announcing that "scientists say there is a direct link between changing climate and an increase in violence". What the scientists actually said, in a not-so-newsworthy article in Nature two and a half years ago, is that there is higher conflict in the tropics in El Nino years, and that perhaps this will scale up to make our age of climate change also an era of civil and international conflict. The message is that ordinary people will behave badly in an era of intensified climate change.
[This is the big lie – the conflating of correlation with causation. I can prove a 100% correlation between water drinkers and hard drug users, but did the water induce individuals to take drugs. Yes, this would be a stupid connection and conclusion.
Some of the violence will be happenstance attributable to individuals who are criminals and crazies, some of the violence will be purposeful, governments seeking to oppress their people and use scarce food, water, energy, and sanitation resources to gain and maintain political and military power. And, much of what will be cited is simply a coincidental correlation with climate. By the way, weather is the short-term phenomena that we experience on a day-to-day basis and climate is the long-term trend over significant periods of time.]
All this makes sense, unless you go back to the premise and note that climate change is itself violence. Extreme, horrific, long-term, widespread violence.
[No! This is where the socialist author is telling you that this wacky theory makes sense and attempts to define climate change as either violence or the root cause of violence. Since we have always had individual and systemic politically-motivated violence, the premise makes little sense other than as another faux reason to abandon capitalism and turn toward socialism and communism.]
Climate change is anthropogenic – caused by human beings, some much more than others. We know the consequences of that change: the acidification of oceans and decline of many species in them, the slowdisappearance of island nations such as the Maldives, increased flooding, drought, crop failure leading to food-price increases and famine, increasingly turbulent weather. (Think Hurricane Sandy and therecent typhoon in the Philippines, and heat waves that kill elderly people by the tens of thousands.)
[One, there is no scientific proof that climate change is anthropogenic – that man’s input signal to the naturally chaotic climate system can even be measured against the natural variability of nature. And two, considering nature appears to be a self-regulating feedback loop, we have little to fear from our planet – and need to fear the political forces who are trying to convince us to adopt draconian public policies because they claim a correlation between climate and man’s actions here on Earth. Akin to the elite ruling class of priests telling the natives that they must sacrifice a human being because the gods are mad and producing a drought.
Extreme weather events have always been with us and are a function of local conditions and the transfer of heat energy in the atmosphere. What makes these events “extreme” is often the loss of life and the amount of damage; both of which depend heavily on political issues of location, zoning, and building codes. Increasing population densities in dangerous areas are a problem – mostly a problem caused by developers paying politicians to look the other way and allow building in zones that were never made to be inhabited on a regular basis.]
Climate change is violence.
[It always helps to repeat your basic socialist nonsense over and over until it is absorbed by the uncritical thinker as common knowledge.]
So if we want to talk about violence and climate change – and we are talking about it, after last week's horrifying report from the world's top climate scientists – then let's talk about climate change as violence. Rather than worrying about whether ordinary human beings will react turbulently to the destruction of the very means of their survival, let's worry about that destruction – and their survival. Of course water failure, crop failure, flooding and more will lead to mass migration and climate refugees – they already have – and this will lead to conflict. Those conflicts are being set in motion now.
[This information is sourced in the discredited IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) who have confused and conflated the output of deeply flawed models to push their socialist agenda and have the United Nations control massive amounts of money and wield supra-national political power. In fact, most of the people at the IPCC are appointed politicians, bureaucrats, and administrators with a political agenda – a far cry from working climate scientists. One chart tells it all.
As you can see the models are dramatically wrong as they fail to predict seventeen years of a global cooling trend. And, again, we see the author redefining climate change as violence.]
You can regard the Arab Spring, in part, as a climate conflict: the increase in wheat prices was one of the triggers for that series of revolts that changed the face of northernmost Africa and the Middle East. On the one hand, you can say, how nice if those people had not been hungry in the first place. On the other, how can you not say, how great is it that those people stood up against being deprived of sustenance and hope? And then you have to look at the systems that created that hunger - the enormous economic inequalities in places such as Egypt and the brutality used to keep down the people at the lower levels of the social system, as well as the weather.
[How can one conflate the interests of bloodthirsty Muslims – who when they are not fighting Israel or infidels, are battling among themselves – and corrupt politicians with the global climate? These people live in a desert, have adapted to a desert, and if they are fighting over critical resources, you can bet these resources are being controlled by dictators, thugs, and religious crazies.]
People revolt when their lives are unbearable. Sometimes material reality creates that unbearableness: droughts, plagues, storms, floods. But food and medical care, health and well-being, access to housing and education – these things are also governed by economic means and government policy. That's what the revolt called Occupy Wall Street was against.
[Deeper and deeper the author digs into the socialist wormhole that leads to an alternative Orwellian universe, where words mean only what corrupt politicians say they mean at the instant that they say them. What Occupy Wall Street was about was a socialist revolutionary attempt to create chaos by convincing “takers” that they had a right to other people’s property. A basic tenet of the socialist/communist system where the government is the owner of all property and the corrupt arbiter of its distribution. What would you do if a stranger entered your house and demanded the keys to your car because they had none?]
The rest of this socialist propaganda can be found at Let's Call Climate Change What It Really Is—Violence
