William A Gardner
JOIN MY READER GROUP
OTHER BLOG POSTS
Climate Change and Rising Seas
Visual and measured evidence does not support the near hysterical claims of many groups - reinforced by the media - that sea levels are rising quickly and will overwhelm low-lying lands within your lifetime. This is called gaslighting. In other words, believe what you are told over and over even when your senses, and photographic historical evidence, tell you otherwise.
In my previous blog on trust and crises I wrote about the illogical actions of the western leaders and that it was important to pose questions about their actions and motivations. In particular, why are leaders of the western democratic countries so intent on reducing the standard of living and controlling the freedom of their citizens? Ostensibly it is primarily to prevent catastrophic climate change by severely restricting the use of fossil fuels and thus the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.1 But could there be another underlying reason behind their actions? Indeed, there is a separate logical reason and it has little to do with the climate. Before we examine that in a future blog we need to ask some questions about the fundamental basis for the so-called climate emergency and why it is so widely accepted as gospel.
A characteristic of humans is that our actions are most often driven by emotion rather than facts or logic. This is well known by those who study behavioural science, and also by people who wish to control the current or future behaviour of others. It includes an attempt to focus attention away from an examination of facts or the use of logic. These techniques used to influence and control people can be subtle or brutally overt, and the most effective are always those that call upon our two strongest emotions: fear and guilt. An example is the claim, using both fear and guilt, that unless we end the burning of fossil fuels in a few short years the planet will become almost uninhabitable. Storms, floods, droughts, famine and pandemics will become much worse and more frequent. Life will become a hellhole for the human race. Humanity may not even survive. And of course it will be our fault.
Don’t think, don’t question, stop being selfish and just do what the 'experts' mandate.
Science and language have both been co-opted by those promoting the agenda. Real science, the natural home of skepticism, argument, alternative facts and debate, has been replaced with a type of consensus science using behavioral techniques including control of what may be published. Allowable speech is restricted. Fundamental questions are frowned upon.
I was reading the Canadian Journal of Rheumatology and noticed that it was full of advertisements, as is common with such journals. It was, however, interesting to note that every one was from a pharmaceutical company. Evidently the majority of the journal's funding comes from the promotion of drugs to be prescribed for people with arthritis and related diseases. Would this affect their editorial policy and content? Draw your own conclusion. What about all the other medical and science journals? And what would be the effect on doctors when they read these journals on a regular basis and are thus presented with only a restricted point of view?
We must understand that language and thought are closely related. George Orwell in his book 1984 wrote how the Party of Big Brother was steadily restricting language by publishing new abbreviated versions of the dictionary. Words disappeared or their meaning was changed. The effect was to restrict what people could even think. Today, global warming becomes climate change so almost any weather event can be blamed on atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Recently we have witnessed such amazing statements as, "the science is settled" meaning that the bringing forward of alternative facts is neither useful nor appropriate. Some would even consider alternative facts and discussion on global climate policy as dangerous. Such a logical discussion may raise further questions and cause hesitancy or skepticism when presented with historical facts. It might even give rise to populism which is essentially the grass roots democracy applauded by Preston Manning2 and denigrated by the Davos crowd. A minimal study of psychology quickly reveals the crass behavioral manipulation currently on display. The interesting aspect of this phenomenon is not that it is used by those who have an agenda, but rather the number of people who embrace the manipulation and become true believers.
Perhaps it is not so surprising. As Joseph Goebbels said, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." This applies to organizations as well as individuals. We have been so inundated by the repetition of climate change warnings and doomsday scenarios that people now accept it as a prima facie fact. When we hear the same message, almost verbatim, from multiple sources we ultimately believe it. We find it difficult to accept that so many different media sources, plus government, can be collaborating to repeat the almost identical message. Thus it must be the truth. And then when our friends repeat these same messages we become subject to the social conformity forces that Asch investigated. The following video clip illustrates this messaging and reveals the corporate concentration which lurks at its core.
The standard legacy media has become a mouthpiece for spreading beliefs that do little more than reinforce a standard approved narrative. As I wrote in my last blog, "What should one think when it is increasingly clear that the people running these institutions are following the dictates of an ideology that is only superficially connected to logic and is often antithetical to the best interests of the people?" The sacred trust in the Fourth Estate is being lost as much of the legacy corporate journalism has devolved into parroting whatever narrative and propaganda the government and major media owners allow. The following Freudian-slip video clip illustrates how the legacy media sees themselves as the source of what people should think.
Then there is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who, while speaking about possible future COVID restrictions, let slip her attitude toward information not coming exclusively from her own Government. “We will continue to be your single source of truth,” she states most earnestly.
Is sea level rising dangerously fast?
A fundamental presupposition of the climate change argument is that sea levels are rising at an increasing rate and this will cause untold costs and human suffering. Large land masses will disappear under encroaching waves. The state of Florida would largely disappear as would many island nations. Coastal cities would be inundated or be required to construct dikes. Is there strong evidence that this is in fact happening? After all, the upward curve of atmospheric carbon dioxide would surely be reflected by now in a significant and measurable rise in sea level around the globe.
There are hundreds of media stories citing studies about sea level rise. Keep in mind that sea levels have been rising with respect to land since the end of the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. The current argument is that global warming due to fossil fuel burning has significantly increased the rate of sea level rise due to the melting of glacier ice located higher than current sea level. Recent headlines and stories such as: "'Doomsday Glacier' which could raise sea level by several feet is holding on by its fingernails, scientists say." Or another: "Melting icecaps in Greenland will contribute to a minimum of 27 centimeters rise in ocean levels even if we collectively stop burning fossil fuels immediately." These stories are supplemented by photos of droughts, hurricanes, heat waves and storm surges often combined with phrases such as "never before seen," or the "highest ever recorded." The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. even updated its style guidelines requiring reporters to use the terms "climate emergency," "climate crisis," or "climate breakdown."
Rather than examining the questionable results and coding of one or more of the iterative computer climate models,3 let’s consider some real-life observations. Here are two photos of Palm Beach, NSW, Australia, taken about one hundred years apart. Can you spot the sea level rise?
Or these photos of Carbis Bay, England, the site of the G7 leaders’ summit in 2021.
Or perhaps these photos of the Statue of Liberty in New York.
After examining these photographs, and recalling that the significant use of fossil fuels began early in the 1800s, what questions come to mind? Do you notice that what you are being repetitively told in the media of sea level rise appears in the photographs to be not happening? This is classic gaslighting - to make you doubt the validity of what you see and hear around you and thus create confusion in your own mind. The classic definition of GASLIGHTING is psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.
Let’s hear from a ferry dock designer whose job depends on understanding ocean level and tides.
Or consider this interview by Sky News with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner who was an expert geologist and geophysicist and was part of the UN IPCC.4
A reasonable deduction
Without belaboring the point, it should be evident there are many strong reasons to question the almost hysterical claims that the sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate and will cause catastrophic damage within a few decades. It would appear from direct observation and rational science, first that the sea level rise of the past few thousand years is continuing at a rate of perhaps a millimeter or so per year, and second that the connection to the current rise in carbon dioxide is tenuous at best. And if you consider periods of cold weather such as occurred in the 1970s, sea level average annual change over decades may not even be as much as that.
The public policies based on the supposed climate emergency threat, policies which are increasing taxation, increasing monetary inflation, increasing world poverty, damaging social cohesion, reducing productivity, and potentially leading to the type of financial and social disasters already appearing in multiple countries around the world, are at best poorly thought out, and at worst utterly dangerous.
One is then left with the question of why the current crop of western leaders are following such damaging policies. And so we come to the quintessential question: Why, with all the challenges in the world, would leaders want to create new or exacerbate existing crises? Stay tuned. The current and impending crises, including the current conflict in Ukraine, are all connected.
Notes and References
- It is reasonably accepted science that carbon dioxide does act as a greenhouse gas. There are strong arguments, however, that such an effect is limited and poses no ultimate threat to the globe or climate. Recent studies and satellite data show that the earth is "greening" due to increased plant growth. Among other benefits, the higher carbon dioxide level allows plants to reduce stomata transpiration - they require less water so are more tolerant of drought - meaning farmers can grow more using less water.
- Preston Manning has a long history in Canada politics and is a strong believer in grass-roots populist energy. Read a recent opinion piece here.
- When you challenge the sea rise narrative you are met with certainty - because the computer projections say that it is happening. But are these models accurate? Questions about iterative computer models and their inherent problems are many and are discussed in another blog that reviews their shortcomings.
- The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been a driving force of the climate change agenda through their conferences known as Council of the Parties, or COP, the next meeting being COP 27 in November 2022 in Egypt. It is interesting that the thousands of participants, if they really believe the rhetoric, would fly to these meeting (many on private jets) rather than simply arranging a Zoom call. It was necessary to modify the airport at Sharm El-Sheikh in order to accommodate the number of (up to 400) jets that would be arriving.