Welcome to the Second Issue of Special Publications no.33.

The mundi club has spent so much time promoting the need for Reforestation as a means of combating global burning that we simply forgot the other side of this issue i.e. criticizing the proposition that the only way of reducing the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere is stopping greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere - as propounded by the emissions-only propagandists.

The second edition of this work involves only minor structural changes and clarifications with a minor amount of additional material.


Introduction.

When global burning first became a political issue in the late 1980s scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) recommended savage reductions in Carbon emissions to combat rising global temperatures. However, they did not make a similar recommendation for an increase in the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover. This lopsided decision was echoed, amplified, and then consolidated, into an emissions-only ideology by greens and conventional politicians. There is reason to believe, even at this early point in the rise of political concern for the destabilization of the climate, that scientists were playing politics by focusing solely on reductions in Carbon emissions and ignoring the absorption of Carbon from the atmosphere by Photosynthesis. Scientists probably genuinely believed their lopsided recommendation would be sufficient for combating the worst of global burning and could succeed without any undue, international political complications which would invariably have arisen if they’d also made recommendations for increases in global Reforestation. However, as soon as this scientific decision entered the political realm, it’s weaknesses and liabilities became more and more transparent. The longer that time has gone by the more blatant its inadequacies have become. After ten years the point has now been reached where it is unlikely that scientists’ original hopes could ever succeed in being fulfilled. The consequences of scientists’ original, and seemingly innocuous, and pragmatic, decision are turning out to be politically catastrophic since the nations of the world have done next to nothing to curb their contributions to global burning - except boast in the media that they are on the verge on implementing radical plans to sort out the problem. This work attempts to show there is no way of combating global burning, either politically or scientifically, by continuing the bizarre focus solely upon reductions in Carbon emissions.


1. The Situation Prior to Climate Change becoming a Political Issue.

There are three main reasons why ipcc’s scientists issued recommendations solely for reductions in Carbon emissions and ignored Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. The first is political; the second is scientific; whilst the third is materialistic.

1.1: Global Burning and the Greens.

In the decades prior to global burning becoming a political issue, greens commonly attacked the chemical and fossil fuel industries for polluting the environment. In those days, greens’ bête noire was the chemical industry which produced a vast range of toxic chemicals in vast quantities. Although these chemicals were supposedly useful to oomans they were ending up in the environment causing increasingly widespread ecological problems. In the 1960s greens’ most vociferous attacks on the chemical industry were over pesticides. In the 1970s they attacked the chemical industry for producing cfcs causing stratospheric ozone depletion. Then they criticized the chemical industry for producing pcbs contaminating Animals around the world. Even today when the chemical industry is no longer their main adversary, greens’ criticisms continue - chemical industries are criticized for producing chemicals which change Animals’ gender. Greens also suspect the chemical industry is releasing chemicals which are reducing ooman fertility - although why they see this as a problem is difficult to appreciate. There is a long, and largely legitimate, list of criticisms which greens have levelled against the chemical industry over the last forty years.

In the 1960s, greens condemned the chemical industry for producing highly toxic pesticides which, in an effort to control so-called pest attacks on crops, were killing Wildlife with which they came into contact. At the time, these criticisms didn’t seem in anyway suspicious. However, with the benefit of hindsight, it does seem odd they didn’t also attack the pharming industry for using these chemicals. As far as greens were concerned, pharmers were not at fault because they were being pushed into using the chemicals by multi-national chemical industries. But the fact is that the majority of pharmers wanted these chemicals - they even demanded them in order to increase their pharming profits. This was the first time that greens covered up the damage being caused by the pharming industry by blaming another industry.

Since then greens’ cover up of the pharming industry has happened repeatedly and has become increasingly glaringly. When the bse epidemic erupted in the mid 1980s, greens blamed the cause and the spread of the disease on the insecticides produced by the chemical industry rather than on the pharming industry’s highly unnatural practice of recycling Animal protein. Even today, leading greens are convinced that bse was caused by insecticides and that bse cannot be spread either by contaminated Animal feed or by maternal transmission. It is worrying then, that if greens had been in government at the time they would have continued to allow the sale of bse-contaminated Animal feed because they blamed insecticides for causing the disease. It has to be wondered how many people would currently being dying from bse because of greens’ cover up of the pharming industry.

Since the rise of climate politics, greens have been covering up the pharming industry’s contribution to global burning. The pharming industry is by far and away the biggest contributor to global burning. But greens not merely refuse to recognize this but blame the fossil fuel industry, or major fossil fuel users such as the car industry, for being the biggest culprit. As far as greens are concerned, the pharming industry is only a minor contributor to global burning. If anything, they believe the pharming industry should be seen as helping to combat global burning by growing crops or encouraging no-tillage pharming techniques.

In brutland, in september 2000, pharmers blockaded oil refineries insisting the government should abolish petrol tax, and yet greens didn’t organize any demonstrations against them. Far from seeing this insurrection as an important political opportunity for attacking the consumption of fossil fuels, the green movement kept quiet because the leaders of the insurrection were pharmers. There were even prominent greens who came out to support pharmers’ demands e.g. robin page of the ‘ecologist’. Green leaders went back to their pharms to secretly support the pharmers’ insurrection, before returning to lead their organizations to new lows of political irrelevance - such as demands for bottle recycling, ‘doing your bit for the environment’, ‘energy efficiency’ etc. [1]

A few months later the pharmer-loving brutish green movement blamed the autumn 2000 floods solely on global burning even though pharmers’ devastation of the land was one of the biggest causes of the floods. This was a flash of green tactical brilliance - blaming global burning for the floods as a means of covering up pharmers’ contribution to both global burning and the flooding. [2] Since the start of the new millennium, the green movement in brutland seems to be shaping itself as the political wing of the countryside alliance. Charles secrett from foes of the Earth attended the inaugural meeting of the countryside alliance and, when interviewed on channel four about allowing Reforestation on pharms abandoned because of the foot and mouth epidemic he declared it was more important to get pharmers back on the land. By giving such fulsome support to pharmers, and the pharming industry, the green movement is never going to combat global burning. On the contrary, it is only going to make things worse.

The fact is then that, in the three decades prior to global burning becoming a political issue, the greens had been condemning the chemical industry and, to a lesser extent, the fossil fuel industry, for environmental disasters whilst covering up for the pharming industry. It was not in the least bit surprising then that when global burning became a political issue, the greens blamed the fossil fuel industry but not the pharming industry. This was the political context in which the ipcc scientists made their decision to concentrate solely upon reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Given that many of them also were also environmentalists, it was not surprising they chose to focus on recommending reduction in greenhouse gases and thus blame the fossil fuel industry, rather than including a recommendation for Reforestation and blaming the pharming industry.


1.2: Global Burning and Nasa.

Nasa is one of the main scientific organizations contributing to the evidence being compiled by the ipcc’s scientific working group. It promotes the traditional scientific view of the Earth - the one that every schoolkid has grown up with for the last few generations. In this view, life plays no role in creating the Earth’s habitability, “Those scientists who hold that the laws of physics and chemistry alone are sufficient explanation of the Earth’s thermostat, are in the majority. Their view was encapsulated by nasa: ‘The earth would still have remained habitable even if it had never been inhabited.” [3] Aeons ago, life suddenly appears on Earth to take advantage of its prefabricated habitability. Tell conventional scientists that micro-organisms, Plants, and Animals, created the Earth’s habitability and they are likely to fall over in shock and bewilderment or, more frequently, fly into an emotional rage which seems to cast suspicions on their ability to think objectively and impartially. This ideology is not merely conventional scientists’ working hypothesis - as if once they realized it didn’t explain the facts they would shift to a more comprehensive theory. It is their only hypothesis. Even worse is that this hypothesis has become completely entangled with their status in life and career prospects. However, whilst nasa scientists have grown up with this belief and may have plenty of reasons, and evidence, for believing it to be true, they are far from being able to prove this hypothesis to be true.

Conventional scientific ideology is diametrically opposed to the science of geophysiology developed by james lovelock. It is of considerable political significance that these two scientific perspectives clashed even before lovelock had developed geophysiology as a distinct perspective. This clash set in motion the conflict between conventional science and geophysiology that has continued for the last four decades. This conflict has been a scandalous waste of time given that geophysiology proved its superiority over conventional science right at the start even before it has been conceptualized.

In the 1960s lovelock was invited to work for nasa to invent instruments for detecting life on mars. Much to nasa’s chagrin, lovelock used his nascent views of geophysiology to predict there was no life on mars. Nasa continued to insist there might be. The first expedition to the surface of mars showed that the planet was indeed lifeless - just as lovelock had predicted.

At this point, it might have been thought that nasa would have congratulated lovelock on his prediction and helped him to explore his geophysiological perspective and, in the process, abandoned its conventional scientific perspective. And instead of spending billions of dollars on continuing to search for non-existent life on mars, they should have focused more attention on learning about the Earth. What was the point of spending tens of billions of dollars on sending a stream of scientific expeditions to mars when it had been proved it was lifeless - especially when their own planet was full of life and had hardly been investigated at all? There could be no more striking symbol of oomans’ perverse stupidity that they could spend such sums of money searching for non-existent Wildlife on mars whilst spending next to nothing on understanding the Earth let alone protecting its vast array of life-forms - most of which were disappearing at an accelerating pace. [4] Just what credence do nasa scientists have when they talk about meeting Wildlife species in space when all they do is allow those on Earth to be slaughtered by the vast ranks of oomano-imperialist morons?

Instead of accepting the superiority of lovelock’s new science over conventional science, nasa scientists fought to protect their multi-billion dollar budget to find life on mars even though this meant continuing to uphold what increasingly became a defunct scientific standpoint. Nasa scientists’ motto seemed to be ‘better a rich scientist talking twoddle than a poor one speaking the truth’. In other words, it was in the material interests of nasa scientists to defend traditional science and dismiss lovelock’s science of geophysiology. After the failure of the first expedition to find life on mars, nasa intensified their efforts in order to try and disprove lovelock’s prediction and resuscitate the corpse of their defunct scientific ideology. Instead of hoping to find little green martians running around on the surface of the planet, they suspected life might be found deep, deep, deep, within the planet. Over time, nasa’s expectations about life on mars has descended further and further into a chasm. First it was life forms running around on the surface of the planet. Then it was creatures living in caves deep beneath the surface of the planet. Now it’s evidence of life forms that existed on the planet a few billion years ago. The story of the clash between lovelock and nasa scientists is not that much different from the story of galileo’s treatment by the inquisition.

So, a couple of decades before the eruption of global burning as a political issue, nasa scientists had locked themselves into a conventional scientific perspective which was becoming more and more ossified whilst lovelock made breakthrough after breakthrough refining his science of geophysiology. Whilst nasa sought ever more desperately to search for signs of life on a lifeless planet, they couldn’t even see the Earth was alive. American scientists had been embarrassed intellectually in the 1960s when a british scientist sat in his armchair and predicted the absence of life on mars whilst they spent tens of millions of scientist-hours and billions of dollars only to end up confirming his prediction. As time has gone by they have suffered further humiliations as lovelock has notched up a succession of major scientific discoveries - not forgetting of course that nasa failed to spot a continent wide hole in the stratospheric ozone layer over antarctica which was discovered by a brutish scientist sending up a cheap plastic balloon! And yet nasa scientists hold considerable power and influence in the scientific world. They use their power to perpetuate a redundant scientific perspective and simply pretend that geophysiology is an irrelevance.

In the late 1980s there was a presumption against geophysiology in the scientific world and this helped to shape the ipcc scientists’ decision to recommend reductions in Carbon emissions as the sole means for combating global burning.


1.3: The Class Bias of the Ipcc Scientists.

The third factor which has a bearing on the ipcc’s tactics for combating rising temperatures is scientists’ class bias. Scientists are drawn from many classes in society but many are from the landowning pharming elites. It is quite natural, having been brought up on pharms and pharming communities, that they would not want to blame the rise in global temperatures on their own class interests. It was much more palatable to them to blame a dirty working class industry like the fossil fuel industry than an aristocratic industry such as pharming. Even global burning is not unaffected by class bigotry.


2. The Global Burning Assumptions of Conventional Green Politics.

2.1: Global Burning caused solely by the Greenhouse Effect.

The ipcc’s decision to recommend only reductions in Carbon emissions was based on the following assumptions:-

* firstly, that global burning is caused solely by the release of excessive Carbon emissions into the atmosphere;

* secondly, that it is the fossil fuel industry which is responsible for releasing anthropogenic Carbon into the atmosphere and is thus primarily to blame for global burning; [5]

* thirdly, that only reductions in Carbon emissions can prevent the climate from burning up;

* fourthly, that damage inflicted on the Earth’s Biodiversity does not contribute to global burning; and,

* fifthly, that devastating the Earth’s life support system in order to reduce Carbon emissions is an acceptable way of combating global burning.

The ipcc’s recommendation, and the political implications of this recommendation, were adopted by greens, the media, and politicians, who have turned these ideas into the cast iron certainties of the emissions-only ideology.


2.2: Politicians’ and Greens’ Refusal to make Recommendations for Reforestation.

As a consequence of the ipcc’s stance, neither scientists, politicians, the media, nor greens, mention Reforestation in discussions about global burning. Whilst they constantly demand an x% reduction in Carbon emissions by the year 200y they never add ‘and a z% increase in Forest cover by 200y’. They never promote policies for both sides of the Earth’s Carbon spiral. There’s never been a newspaper heading such as ‘Scientists/Greens/Politicians pressure government to Reforest 40% of the country’ - but then again, the media never mentions the role of Reforestation in combating global burning. Greens “scorn” Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. Whilst the idea of greens opposing Trees sounds scarcely feasible, it is nevertheless true. It’s like saying that environmentalists aren’t interested in the environment or that socialists aren’t interested in socialism. But greens are so vehement in their defence of the emissions-only tactic they not merely ignore Reforestation but “scorn” it. In the guardian, robert mckie talked about european governments’ and greens’ “fury” about proposals for Reforestation and their “scorn” for this idea, “The prime problem is America, the world's greatest emitter of carbon dioxide, which presses, with increasing insistence, that it should be spared from reducing its output and should instead be allowed to create new forests, both in the US and the Third World. These trees and plants, known collectively as carbon sinks, will soak up all that nasty carbon dioxide, say US delegates, and will obviate the need for Americans to abandon their profligacy. The US also believes that by planting crops specially designed to soak up carbon dioxide, it could extend its 'sink' philosophy from the wild to the farmyard, thus strengthening its case for unabated industrial emissions. It was this idea, introduced at the Hague last week, that provoked that outburst of fury by Europe's delegates. Europe and most developing nations, as well as most non-governmental agencies, scorn the idea of carbon sinks. Only the real thing - cuts in emissions - will definitely work, they say.” [6]


Horizontal Black Line


SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS - Issue 1 - - Issue 2 - - Issue 3 - - Issue 4 - - Issue 5 - - Issue 6 - - Issue 7 - - Issue 8 - - Issue 9 - - Issue 10
Issue 11 - - Issue 12 - - Issue 13 - - Issue 14 - - Issue 15 - - Issue 16 - - Issue 17 - - Issue 18 - - Issue 19 - - Issue 20
Issue 21 - - Issue 22 - - Issue 23 - - Issue 24 - - Issue 25 - - Issue 26 - - Issue 27 - - Issue 28 - - Issue 29 - - Issue 30
Issue 31 - - Issue 32 - - Issue 33 - - Issue 34 - - Issue 35 - - Issue 36 - - Issue 37 - - Issue 38 - - Issue 39 - - Issue 40
MUNDI CLUB HOME AND INTRO PAGES - Mundi Home - - Mundi Intro
JOURNALS - Terra / Terra Firm / Mappa Mundi / Mundimentalist / Doom Doom Doom & Doom / Special Pubs / Carbonomics
TOPICS - Zionism / Earth / Who's Who / FAQs / Planetary News / Bse Epidemic
ABOUT THE MUNDI CLUB - Phil & Pol / List of Pubs / Index of Website / Terminology / Contact Us

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome
to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge
the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.
We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms.
Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk
The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/
1