Last night, whilst reading a lovely, metallic-sheathed copy of Wired UK, thoughtfully given to me by my man, who loves to indulge my very fleshy inner geek, I came across an article with a deck that caused my eyes to pop wide open.
"Will it one day be erroneous to view Al Gore as a saint," which was followed by, "Does history tell the truth?"
Did I just read that in PRINT? Glory BE!
This headline instantly convinced me its writer was not only brilliant but obviously supernaturally influential for having got such a deck - a subheadline - into a major publication.
Said writer is Matt Ridley, possessor of a PhD in Zoology from Oxford University and journalist since 1983.
The Ridley's piece in Wired.Uk is a bare page long, yet lays open a cavern of questions that sent me rocketing to my google search engine. In particular, Ridley's use of a gentle 'What if?' format lays open the criminal misrepresentation of the currently 'hot' climate debate as if it were a two week old cadaver subject to a giant slicing blade....
To quote, "The more I read, the more I find history full of fables."
More to the point - and this is the place where I went madly off to my search engine - was this part of the article:
"Item: As a good, green-reared conservationist, I thought acid rain killed forests in the 80s - until I read Gregg Easterbrook's account, A Moment on the Earth, of how the biomass of European forests actually increased during the 80s and 90s, while in the US, the official, ten-year, $500,000, 700-scientist, government-sponsored study did a great rash of experiments and found 'there is no evidence of a general or unusual decline of forests in the US or Canada due to acid rain.'
Ridley goes on to write, 'When asked if he had been pressured to be optimistic, one of the authors said the reverse was true;'" (I'm paraphrasing now) the Environmental Protection Agency worked to keep the researchers from providing Congress with their findings. Hm...
Sound familiar? Not six weeks ago, a massive raft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, was exposed to the public, all damning. These emails make it clear the CRU suppressed (at best), manipulated and flat out created information to support the ridiculous theory (as they state it) that humans are killing the planet via CO2....
And, to make matters critically more interesting in terms of information manipulation, CO2 - the gasses you and I and the entire rainforest and cows and your house-cat breath out - has been declared POISON. Yup. Poison. More on Human Events, HERE.
Weird, because I believe the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest was HUGE news not 10 years ago.... So, given that CO2 is now poison, will that pave the way for its destruction finally? I smell CORPORATE INTEREST and PROFIT....
Here's my theory, based on nothing other than a gut feeling: certain environmental 'catastrophes' have been floated (as false flag events) to see if any could stick. Acid Rain; El Nino/La Nina; the ozone layer: none of those could stick because none of those had aspects that could be easily controlled/manipulated. CO2? Yeah, that can easily be manipulated and made as the foundation to foster fear. The fact that CO2 has now been declared a poison should give us some clue as to how far this insanity might go. Will it become a terrorist act to breathe?
I'll continue this shortly. I've just Twittered Matt Ridley to get his permission to quote him, link him and repost the Wired.UK article. in the meantime, I encourage you to search and read anything you can find from this writer.
Oh, and as an added bonus, Mr. Ridley is an evolutionist, which I know is a very dirty word if you're some people, so I'm even happier to include him in my list of people to read. Here's a bio via Reason Magazine.
Off topic, but related to Mr. Ridley:
To a (I hope) reader, LMA: this guy should be on the TOP of your reading list, particularly for his book, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation (1997), in which Ridley showed how natural selection led to human morality. Not a SKIFF of religion in that mix. A point: perfectionism is equal to control (and indicates a terror of being out of control), not diligence; those two concepts cannot be confused and are mutually exclusive.
Back soon. Off to stir the shite a bit.