We quite often quote physics professors here, but not often physics professors discussing “the key role of maintaining dollar hegemony and the importance of the petrodollar to US global dominance,”or who argue that “the US has an existential interest to ensure that opioid drugs are traded in US dollars” and who quote Albert Camus, professor Mike Hulme, and a Major General of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army as authorities.
Professor Denis Rancourt does this, and he does it rather well, in a paper published by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association entitled “Geo-economics and Geo-politics drive Successive Eras of Predatory Globalisation and Social Engineering: Historical Emergence of Climate Change, Gender Equity, and Anti-racism as State Doctrines” (April2019).
[Anyone who shapes their opinions in order to fit in with their world views, filtering them according to their political or other beliefs (as psychologists tell us we all do) will by now be thoroughly confused, and can stop reading, leaving the discussion to the adults.]
Here’s an extract from the Counterpunch article:
Interviewer: You discuss the need for states to ensure consent: the need to pacify, hypnotize and align populations for continued globalization; more precisely, the need to divert attention from the structural violence of economic policies and the actual violence of militarism. Can you say something about how the issue of global warming relates to this?
Denis Rancourt: Irrespective of whether the so-called ‘climate crisis’ is real, exaggerated or fabricated, it is clear, from the data in my report, that the ethos of global warming was engineered on a global scale and benefits the exploiters of the carbon-economy and, more indirectly, the state. […]
Carbon sequestration schemes have devastated local communities on every occupied continent. If anything, carbon schemes − from wind farms to biofuel harvesting to industrial battery production to solar-cell array installations to mining uranium to mega hydro-dam construction and so on – have accelerated habitat destruction. Meanwhile, economic and military warfare rages […] while our educated children have nervous breakdowns trying to get governments to “act” on “climate”.
In the early-1990s, a world conference on climate environmentalism was an express response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This was part of a global propaganda project intended to mask the new wave of accelerated predatory globalism that was unleashed now that the USSR was definitively out of the way.
Interviewer: What are your thoughts on Greta Thunberg and the movement surrounding her?
Denis Rancourt: It is sad and pathetic. The movement is a testament to the success of the global propaganda project that I describe in my report. The movement is also an indicator of the degree to which totalitarianism has taken hold in Western societies; wherein individuals, associations and institutions lose their ability for independent thought to steer society away from the designs of an occupying elite. Individuals (and their parents) become morality police in the service of this ‘environmentalism’.
What’s interesting here is not the standard Trotspeak condemnation of US capitalist hegemony, but the fact of fierce attacks on current obsessions with climate change, gender equality and anti racism being expressed at CounterPunch, which is one of the nerve centres of U.S. right-on lefty thought. But let’s look at Professor Rancourt’s paper, which is even better.
Part One is about Economic Globalisation, following the USA’s withdrawal from Bretton Woods and the fall of the Soviet Union. It has a number of graphs attempting to demonstrate that post-fall-of-the-Soviet-Union liberalisation leads directly to death and disaster. Basically, anything that starts to rise exponentially circa 1990 can be associated with anything else that does the same, thus proving (e.g.) that the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide is a plot to kill us all from nasty diseases. This might be so, I wouldn’t know. But didn’t the ability to spot exponential rises due to new computery thingummies start round about then? If, in the nineties, you had a degree in epidemiology and several megabytes of brand new computer space, isn’t a recent hockeystick-shaped whoosh just what you’d be looking for? I’d like some expert comment on that.
Part Two, which is about Social Construct Globalisation, covers 28 pages, ten of which are about the climate change movement, and very good they are too:
The empire seeks to turn our attention away from actual crimes with actual victims […] and instead asks us to look up to the sky for the threat (CO2) that could end the human species, no less, unless we are sufficiently good, active, and cooperative.
This, in our opinion, is the process of how the global-warming “religion” was born. Like any proper religion of an empire, it must be taxable, exploitable by a large layered array of power players, and useful in motivating massive restructuring campaigns. The alleged danger must be gigantic, involving humanity and the planet itself, in order to focus attention, and for personal investment in the religion to be rewarding.
If there is any doubt of the potential for the global warming paradigm to in-effect be a State “religion”, even justifying war, the words of Noam Chomsky, spoken in 1994 to 1996 and 1999, merit being noted:
“—For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover—with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now.—”
Noam Chomsky admitting he’d support a fascist takeover – that’s the Noam Chomsky who wrote one of the best analyses of the anarchist defence of Barcelona during the Spanish civil war – that’s a quote worth verifying. [I’ve dropped all references, but they can be found in the original paper]
Rancourt supports his thesis that global warming hysteria was engineered as a response to the fall of the Soviet Union thus:
In a 2017 encyclopedia article, Mike Hulme writes:
“—The growing political resonance of climate change was partly explained by the dissolution of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991. Fears of Cold War destruction were displaced by those associated with climate change, prompting the observation at the time from cultural theorist Andrew Ross that, ‘apocalyptic fears about widespread droughts and melting ice caps have displaced the nuclear threat as the dominant feared meteorological disaster’..”
After a discussion of the machinations of the UNFCCC (Earth summit, IPCC) Rancourt comments:
The formalized institutional backing at the highest levels, the involvement of sectors of civil society (NGOs), and the media coverage, instantly gave the global warming narrative a large boost, both in the amount of scientific activity and in the cultural and media realms […] The said boost was artificial, in that the planet did not suddenly experience an onslaught of sustained climate and weather catastrophes in December 1991. There was no global change of atmospheric or climatic regime in 1991. There was no sudden increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1991.[…] Likewise, climatologists did not, in 1991, suddenly start using climate models to simulate the effects of increasing CO2, or suddenly develop more sophisticated global circulation models. On the contrary, radiative and heat-transfer atmospheric physics and global circulation models of the planet were essentially as advanced as they are today as early as the 1960s, and were being used to make essentially the same CO2-effect predictions as today. […] Coupling of the ocean and atmosphere systems was included in global circulation models in 1969. By 1980, detailed simulations of spatially-resolved earth surface warming were being produced. […] No one got excited about a coming end of the world whatsoever, not even when relative newcomers James Hansen and colleagues at the NASA Institute for Space Studies concluded in more alarmist terms in their 1981 paper in the influential journal Science:
“—The global warming projected for the next century is of almost unprecedented magnitude…”
Likewise, climate and environmental scientists did not flock to research the coming CO2- induced possible end of the world. This flocking of direction in scientific research did not occur until the UN’s post-Soviet-Union new-found UNFCCC concern to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”, and until the media hype surrounding the Earth Summit.
There follow long analyses of the timing of awareness of climate change / global warming and such spinoffs as carbon trading, based on word searches (not my favourite social science tool) in the scientific and official literature, as well in as in various popular media, with a useful summary awkwardly sandwiched in the middle:
In summary, all the reviewed data shows that “global warming” suddenly became “a thing”, both in the general culture and in the science community, when the UNFCCC and Earth Summit said it was a thing. Both the UNFCCC and Earth Summit were organized immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union. This sudden “turning on” of “awareness” regarding an impending end of the human species from increasing atmospheric CO2 occurred at this late time even though virtually all the relevant science and its predictions (with the same limitations as today) had already been done and communicated by the end of the 1960s…
Rancourt then turns to the “Emergence of gender-equity and anti-racism as state doctrines in the post-Soviet-Union era”and rather oddly begins this equally interesting section with an excellent summary of the previous one:
Global warming is a powerful state-religion that has siloed concern and individual emotional investment away from the violence of globalization and class exploitation, including actual environmental destruction in the immediate environments of many communities, towards a diffuse danger for which everyone, and therefore no one, is responsible. It serves to appease the consciences of the professional-class collaborators, and of middle-class individuals who are vulnerable to privilege-guilt.
The whole paper is well worth reading. As I’ve indicated briefly above, I’m not sure he’s entirely proved his case that climate change hysteria stems entirely or largely from a conscious attempt by our masters to manage the post-Soviet world, but a profound and detailed analysis on a leftwing blog of climate change hysteria by a Marxist professor of Physics is a rare enough occurrence that we can at least salute it as Dr Johnson saluted the first inroads of feminism into organised religion: “Sir, a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”