Facts, as they say, are facts. On the other hand, untrue representations presented as facts are either uninformed, intentionally disingenuous, or a combination of the two. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statements attacking those who challenge the existence of a human-caused climate crisis likely fall into the third category.
Speaking at a February 16 press conference in a U.S. Embassy-run American Center held at a shopping mall in Jakarta, Indonesia, Kerry described climate change as the world’s “most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” He also referred to those who don’t subscribe to that hell-in-a-hand basket global warming apocalypse as “Flat-Earthers.”
Kerry told the audience: “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”
First of all, let’s briefly review just a few real facts:
* There has been no statistical global warming for the past 17 years…most of today’s high school students haven’t witnessed it in their lifetimes.
* There is absolutely no credible scientific consensus that human activities, including fossil burning, are having a dangerous (or even measurable) influence on climate change…either for warming or cooling.
* The climate crisis dogma-premised “sustainable energy” fetish has caused disastrous government policies in the U.S. and abroad, particularly in Europe where failures have produced economic distress.
* Nations are abandoning the UN’s climate hype-promoted Kyoto carbon emission reduction commitments in droves as its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change struggles to explain why its model-based predictions have been spectacularly disproven by Mother Nature.
* Climate changes without any help from us…has for millions of years…and as we can expect, always will…with Ice Ages occurring during about 90 percent of the time.
Kerry’s Very Original Talking Points Speech Writer
Perhaps the content and tone of Secretary Kerry’s pronouncements will strike some people as familiar, dating back to the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro aimed at ginning up Kyoto Protocol support. Speaking at the opening ceremony, its organizing chairman, Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, said “Every bit of evidence I’ve seen persuades me that we are on a [climate] course leading to a tragedy.”
Bear in mind here that this “persuading evidence” appeared just 12 years after three and one-half decades of flat or cooling temperatures had persuaded many scientists to conclude that the next Ice Age was nigh. Lots of major news publications trumpeted this alarm in headline articles.
Strong has never left any doubt where he places greatest blame for global climate and environmental problems, stating that “The United States is clearly the greatest risk to the world’s ecological health.”
As he explained in the UN’s world Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED) August 28, 1991, report: “It is clear that the current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home and work place conditioning and suburban housing is not sustainable… A shift is necessary towards lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns.”
Maurice Strong – certainly no common run-of-the-mill billionaire – has an extremely interesting and active background. Early-on he and his wife, Hanne, an occultist, established a global headquarters in San Luis Valley, Colorado, for the New Age movement called “Baca.” after a mystic informed them it “would become the center for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.”
As a close associate of Secretary General Kofi Anan, Strong was appointed to chair the panel that created the UN’s Iraq office for its “Oil-For-Food” program. Introduced by the Clinton Administration in 1995 under a UN Security Council Resolution, the program’s intended purpose was to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs of its needy citizens without allowing Saddam Hussein’s regime to boost its military capabilities. As it turned out, however, the program also provided lots of humanitarian aid to some very non-needy financial recipients, and was later ended after revelations of corruption hit the press.
One of those found guilty of attempting to bribe UN program officials overseeing the Oil-for-Food program was Tongsun Park, a South Korean businessman who had sublet office space from Maurice Strong. Coincidentally, it seems, Park also invested nearly $1 million paid from his Jordanian bank account in Strong’s family business…one which later went bankrupt.
During the scandal Strong declared no wrongdoing or involvement in Oil-for-Food, and was never charged. He then left the UN that year and moved to Beijing where his close friendships with top Chinese government leaders dated back to the Cultural Revolution under Mao Tse-tung.
But count on Maurice to come back Strong when there’s a good opportunity to cash in on fossil-fueled climate alarm, reentering through the Green curtains of the anti-carbon scam stage as chairman of the China Carbon Corporation, and vice chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
As I discussed in my February 11 column, passage of the international Kyoto Protocol plus proposed carbon cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. promised a windfall profit bonanza for renewable energy subsidy seekers and their offset credit trading cronies. Al Gore’s famous and feverish 1988 congressional hearings trumpeting global warming danger, along with his frightening An Inconvenient Truth science fiction movie set the stage for a media thriller.
A less-publicized and more truly inconvenient truth at the time was that Gore and his partner David Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management who held big stakes in CCX, would have been huge winners if cap-and-trade hopes hadn’t been swept way in the 2010 mid-term election Republican House cleaning. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.”
Kerry’s Kyoto, Cap-and-Trade and Climate Confusion
John Kerry voted against carbon restrictions before he voted for them. After all, he was among those who unanimously passed a 1997 Byrd – Hagel resolution against the Kyoto treaty. Along with then-President Bill Clinton who recognized the peril of submitting it for Senate ratification, Kerry knew better than to publicly support a politically unsavory treaty which the bill asserted “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”
Then in 2010, Kerry and fellow Senator Joe Lieberman co-sponsored a failed attempt to pass a cap-and-trade end-run called the “American Power Act.” A more appropriate description, however, would have been “American power grab” since, in reality, it had little to do with developing our nation’s vast domestic fossil energy resources. Rather, it emphasized ways to mitigate the alleged effects of carbon-based energy upon climate and expand government bureaucracy by creating at least 60 expensive new agencies and projects.
The proposed act included a $7 billion annual “linked fee” added to gasoline prices to “improve U.S. transportation inefficiency.” The plan was to have producers and importers of gasoline and jet fuel purchase non-tradable carbon allowances paid according to a fixed price established by trading auction rates. While the language of the bill wasn’t actually referred to as a linked fee or tax, you probably wouldn’t recognize any difference when paying the added cost at the gas pump.
Another $2 billion in the bill was to be allocated per year for researching and developing effective carbon capture and see question method for coal plants…kind of like creating a GITMO for dangers posed by Kerry’s climate-ravaging carbon terrorist provocateurs. In addition, there was to be a multibillion–dollar revenue stream for agriculture to finance a carbon–offset program.
A Keystone Copout vs. Capstone Climate Legacy Conundrum
Secretary of State Kerry will serve as either the Obama Administration’s designated scapegoat or environmental activist hero for the final decision whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. He’s also a high-profile banner-carrier on the front lines of the President’s religious war on climate change. Have no doubt that he realizes there’s a lot of green at risk for his party, not to mention his own future ambitions, if decisions don’t go with the greenies on both issues.
Much of that green will be depend upon appeasing priorities of a billionaire and climate activist named Tom Steyer who has indicated willingness to earmark $100 million or more to help put or keep congressional candidates who support his priorities. Steyer threatened in an open letter that Obama better reject Keystone… or else! It warned: “Given that none of the chief arguments being put forth by supporters of the pipeline remain standing, NextGen Action [his political action committee] is going to be working with our friends and allies who are opposed to the development of Keystone XL to intensify our efforts in communicating what is the right policy choice to your Administration.”
Leaving no doubt which side of the fence those friends and allies stood on, the letter said, “On June 20, in Washington, DC, we will announce a campaign that will specifically focus on communicating to those Americans across the country that supported your election in 2012.”
Since the Keystone pipeline crosses the U.S. border, the State Department under Kerry’s authority will (at least officially) have final say on permitting. And it’s not as if the project is being rushed through without careful attention to environmental safeguards. After a 5-year wait, Keystone XL has met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements created by the State Department and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). It passed all with flying colors, including acceptance by the State of Nebraska where it passes over the sensitive Ogallala Aquifer.
Last January another study concluded that the pipeline would have minimal impact on climate…not because there’s no scientific evidence that any pipeline would…but rather because the Canadian oil sands will be developed anyway. (Isn’t it remarkable that an expensive study was needed to figure that out?) Even if the pipeline isn’t built, Canada certainly won’t leave those resources in the ground. Instead, they will be sent to an energy-eager China.
Speaking of fossil energy-thirsty China, Kerry has deftly negotiated a “unique cooperative effort” with the country to combat climate change. Speaking at a press conference at a Beijing car-making factory he said: “I’m very pleased to report today that the leaders of China have agreed to join us in a mutual effort – China and the United States will put extra effort into exchanging information and discussing policies that will help both of us to be able to develop and lead on the standards that need to be announced next year in the global climate change agreement.”
Gosh, I bet China will have some really great ideas to share with him on how to end a millions-of-years history of climate change. Meanwhile, they might also direct attention to attacking real air pollution, not harmless and essential plant-nourishing CO2 that all carbon-based life – including environmental activists and billionaires – depends upon.
And maybe while we’re exchanging ideas with China about jointly addressing any climatological weapon of mass destruction threat, they can give us a hand with some other global dangers as well. China’s assistance in arresting WMD terrorism threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and Syria immediately come to mind as examples of climate changes in global security cooperation we can all wish for.
A version of this article first appeared in Forbes Online (2/24/14).