Dylan Jones writes:
“I was watching James Corbett’s “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” and was on the chapter entitled “Technocracy” featuring the editor of Technocracy News when I received these e-mails.
“The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?”
Well I thought about what Ball was saying, again, as I have mulled through this before. What is interesting is what Ball leaves out:
What scientists actually found was that CO2 feedback in response to orbital changes amplifies that effect so that 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
“The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.”
“Other greenhouse gases” must surely include changes in the level of water vapour and cloud cover along with the ice sheet loss.
Ball refers to Anthony Watts as if he backs up his claims:
“Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.”
“Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.”
His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value.”
“It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.”
“By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.”
He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”
Watts does not argue that Arrhenius was mistaken in his assessment that CO2 was a greenhouse gas that trapped heat. He argues that Arrhenius held that the CO2 rise due to combustion of fossil fuel would be beneficial. Finally Watts, like most skeptics, argues that Arrhenius overestimated the warming effect of CO2 not that it has no warming effect at all as Ball insists.
He also falls back on the “Friends of Science”:
“The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work.”
“Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate. He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it.”
“The IPCC has now lowered its estimates as well to be within range of Arrhenius’ revised view. This would give the range as 1.6 to 3.9 ℃, but the same qualifiers persist.”
As far as I know, a good approximation to this range was predicted by Roger Revelle in the 60’s. No “lowering of estimates” there.
Some scientists rejected Arrhenius’s view. Nobody remembers them, but this is Ball’s “evidence” that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Arrhenius himself made the link between the feedback effect of CO2 warming on water vapour levels:
“In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation in the same way as does the CO2, whereby the absorption of CO2 comprises a larger fraction of the earth’s radiation then if the water vapour would be removed from the atmosphere. In part, the temperature causes an increase in water vapour emitted into the atmosphere, on account of an increase in the quantity of CO2, with the subsequent rise in temperature.”
He didn’t retract his conviction that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, he acknowledged that the feedback effect on water vapour would be necessary to amplify the temperature increase to the predicted range.
“The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”
Again, Ball presents no real evidence that this is the case, he just insists that such evidence exists, but we never get to see it.
In my view, it is a waste of time debating whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, along with whether the earth is flat or if nuclear weapons are a hoax.
CO2 is about life yes, but so is H20, and that is definitely a greenhouse gas as Ball loves to remind us. I agree though that water is where the action is. However I have seen nothing really that refutes the notion that CO2 warms the planet. It’s all about the degree to which it does that:
1/3 Global Warming due to Anthropogenic activity – 1.5 degrees Celsius
CO2 emissions, deforestation, Methane emissions etc
2/3 due to “feedback effects” – Clandestine Climate Modification – 3 degrees Celsius – enough to “destabilize human civilization”
“At that point, it might be too late to prevent permanent, dangerous feedback loops from kicking in.”
“This is the biggest problem humanity has ever faced, and we’ve barely even begun to address it effectively. On our current pace, factoring in current climate policies of every nation on Earth, the best independent analyses show that we are on course for warming of about 3.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, enough to extinguish entire ecosystems and destabilize human civilization.”
Humans didn’t exist the last time there was this much CO2 in the air
You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming proponents that disagree with each other, disagree about the extra 2/3, the 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback.
You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming skeptics (the actual scientists) usually also disagree (with the proponents) around the issue of the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback and not about the warming due to CO2. In other words, they don`t accept the clouds will amplify the initial CO2 warming to threaten humanity. For them 1.5 degree Celsius by the end of this century is acceptable as we are already half way there.
Substitute cloud feedback for Clandestine Climate Modification that will intentionally ensure the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius and destabilize human civilisation.
The skeptics are right that genuine cloud feedback wouldn’t cause the threat alone but they are unaware of or ignoring the Clandestine Climate Modification.
The proponents are observing the behaviour of clouds and water vapour and extrapolating but they are unaware of or ignoring the fact that such behaviour is characteristic of Clandestine Climate Modification, intentional cloud forcing rather than merely cloud feedback.
It makes sense therefore to concentrate on the 2/3rds warming due to Clandestine Climate Modification and convince either side of it as the missing piece to the puzzle rather than waste time on the 1/3 which would not pose a threat to human civilisation alone.
This factor would also render the notion of Climate Justice entirely valid as it does indeed come down to class warfare, the rich versus the poor.
Social Engineering will be sure to play a part:
“Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy.”
Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
Climate Modification really is the missing link that explains why the paradoxical plan of the Oiligarchs, who are really the ContrOligarchs, as set forth in James Corbett’s excellent “How Big Oil Conquered The World” and “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” is to divest from fossil fuels and phase into alternative energy sources, and transform themselves into the “saviours of humanity”.
Comment from Marvin Herndon
Some of the explanations are here: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Geoengineering_Scientific_Articles.html
Comment from Todd Schlesinger
The story they are telling is that temp would rise a few degrees in 80 years? It doesn’t explain the climate change we have already seen here in MD, over the 3 years since the spraying went berserk. No more Winter season, very little snow, all 4 seasons out of whack. Major tree die-off, majority of animals in the adjacent forest vanished, greyish dust visible on car and outdoors area. They made it warm here without the CO2. And the Sun is now a whitish color; guessing the O3 layer collapsed.
Comment from Elana Freeland
Ho hum, I’ve known this since before the self-important 2015 Paris Conference. Another globalist scam. CO2 is about LIFE, and whatever life the global elites and their phalanx of complicit scientists can’t destroy, they will milk and enslave so as to pile up disaster capitalist profits for themselves and their weaponized Space Age.
Contribution from Harold Saive
CO2 IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS – Tim Ball:
The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas
The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN Editor
by Wayne Hall
The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are held each year in the framework of the relevant treaty that was opened for signature in 1992. This treaty aims at addressing climate change by imposing on all treaty signatories the obligation to reduce the emissions of the gases that are said to cause the greenhouse phenomenon. It requires the industrialized countries – in contrast to the developing countries – to achieve stabilization at the levels of 1990. The distinction between industrialized and developing countries derives from the assertion that the industrialized countries are responsible for the greater part of global emissions of greenhouse gases and also that they possess the institutional and financial ability to limit them. As a member of the European Union, Greece is included among the industrialized countries.
The first UN climate change conference was held in Berlin in 1995. The most recent, the 23rd, is being held at this moment (12th November 2017) in Bonn. The Presidency this year is held by Fiji. At the UN climate change conferences the presence of civil society has been conspicuous from the outset in the sense that there is participation by NGOs concerned with environmental problems, and indeed not only environmental problems but also problems of equality, relations between the sexes, etc. Many of the activists are committed to what is known as climate justice, something evidently based on a supposition of deliberate human intervention in the climate, because if the climate is determined by Mother Nature, or even a combination of Mother Nature and the unintentional effects of industrial development, it appears pointless to speak of justice, because presumably Mother Nature follows her own rules which are not dictated by the desires of human beings.
Apart from the influence of NGOs on the discussions there is an additional factor, which is noted by the organization Carbon Trade Watch, a group opposed to emissions trading, one of the central elements of UN methodology for the climate.
According to Carbon Trade Watch in the years that have passed since the first conference in Berlin we see the discussions moving further away from identification of the real causes of climate change, along with a spiraling of the negative effects, influencing ever wider areas and ever larger populations. Each year we see a more powerful presence of big corporations and a weaker influence of those suffering the damage.
The climate crisis has been transformed into an opportunity for new businesses, new sources of profit. Climate policies foster the financialization of nature. The elements of nature – carbon dioxide, water, biodiversity, become measurable units, which can be bought and sold and also become the object of stock exchange speculation.
Of course the NGOs oppose these developments, and the result is that the United Nations conferences have become a battlefield between large and small vested interests. Because they are increasingly losing the ability to influence developments at governmental level, the organizations that are being funded to participate in the conferences increasingly resort to the media, staging public relations stunts which sometimes resemble reality shows.
The growing distance between the summit and the base was addressed initially through stricter policing. At Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2011, according to the activist Anne Petermann, official permission was required for every demonstration and protest. Even wearing a T-shirt with an unacceptable slogan on it was enough to get oneself thrown out of the conference. By the time of the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris a system of apartheid had grown up with a geographical distance of kilometres separating the officials on one hand from civil society on the other.
The greatest turmoil was produced by the functions that had maximum coverage from the media. If we can judge from the experiences of some of us in Paris, where we demonstrated around an issue that is buried totally and systematically by the television and the press, namely climate manipulation, the way in which we were treated by the police was finally more polite and their interest greater than in the case of subjects that had attracted the interest of the media, where both the demonstrators and the police were more aggressive and more closed.
As indicated, at this year’s conference in Bonn, Fiji has the presidency, and the focus of media attention was on the Pacific Climate Warriors. The aim of the Pacific Climate Warriors is abolition of fossil fuels. In October 2014 they blockaded the harbour of Newcastle in Australia, the country’s largest coal exporting port. Last week, to return to the present, the Pacific Climate Warriors blocked the entrance to a lignite mine in the Rhineland in Germany.
Both in Australia and in Germany, not to mention other countries, the turn to renewable energy sources, chiefly from sun and wind, is facing many problems, which are not exclusively attributable to political pressure from the oil and mining lobbies. The Australian state that has made the greatest turn to renewables, particularly wind parks, now has the most expensive electricity in the world, and is plagued by blackouts. Many poor families can no longer afford to have electricity in their homes. Those who have their backs to the wall politically are not just the Greens and the Labor Party but also the big centre-right parties that have supported the turn to renewable energy sources. The nuclear lobby, which had been defeated in Australia on the electricity generation front, is staging a comeback and entering the fray with powerful arguments against industrial wind farms and solar installations.
In Germany both nuclear energy and wind farms have lost the confidence of the public, with the result that new lignite burning power stations are being built. The arguments against wind power are focused on the damage that ultrasound can do to human health, and also to bats, which it attracts, to be killed by the rotors, and then the damage that is being caused to wide expanses of unspoilt countryside, and the fact that wind parks do not sufficiently reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
One Carbon Trade Watch activist Ivonne Yanez from Ecuador even floats the idea that the policy of leaving 70% of fossil fuels in the ground may be supported by a section of the oil lobby with a view to securing higher prices.
In any case, in the final analysis although Greece is a member of the European Union and regarded as an industrialized country and not a developing country, the fact is that we are not in the same category as those who can fund the Pacific Climate Warriors to stage demonstrations in Australian industrial cities. We are in the same category as these people from so-called underdeveloped countries who tell us that that their property Is under threat, their land, their survival in their present way of life. And I hope that we are not going to be satisfied with staging reality shows and the politics of the spectacle. We want to be citizens with functioning institutions and with the ability to defend ourselves and defend genuine sustainable development.
The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit (COP15) is generally seen as being a catastrophic failure.
There was, however, one little-reported meeting in the context of COP15 that looked as if it might be pointing to future discussions on other – and better – terms, namely the ETC Group’s discussion of geoengineering, including “solar radiation management”.
The Introductory Address at the Aegina meeting gave a summary of the activism of the day, some of which has withstood the test of time, but much not.
What has prevailed internationally is that instead of the deficiencies of the climate debate being addressed, the whole debate has been rejected by official politics in the USA as “a hoax”. (In fact President Trump has said: “A lot of it is a hoax. It’s a money-making industry.”) It has been left to the Chinese to lead contemporary discussion on the (defective) terms of the climate summits.
The ETC group made a timid attempt to rescue τηε subject of climate manipulation from the stigma of being “conspiracy theory”. But they have not succeeded.
Neither has the activism against “geoengineering” succeeded that was initiated in Aegina.
In the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 the leaders of around 200 states decided to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases so that the temperature of the planet would fall to levels slightly higher than before the industrial age. If the plan does not succeed the dangerous consequences of climate change will be irreversible and obvious by the end of the century.
Two degrees above the level at which we find ourselves today is regarded by scientists as the tolerable ceiling for global warming. If that is exceeded extreme weather phenomena will be experienced: storms, droughts and a rise in the sea level are some of them. The consequences will be shortages of food and water and an increase in emigration as the planet becomes inhospitable. If we don’t change, this ceiling will be exceeded by 2050..
The leaderships of the countries and the great global polluters, with the attitudes they have adopted to date, can only be described as anything but trustworthy. Trump’s decision to withdraw the USA from the Agreement is the most characteristic.
Given all this, scientists in recent years have put forward many different ideas. One of them is geoengineering, that is to say manipulation of the climate which theoretically could cool the planet and stabilize the environment. There are two kinds of geoengineering: the first has to do with removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. At an industrial level this is already happening, but it is not enough to deal with the massive levels of emissions that are recorded every day. The second has to do with solar radiation management. In this more radical scenario theoretically the level of solar radiation being absorbed by the planet could be reduced by reflecting it away.
One way that this could be done, according to studies, is by spraying reflective particles in the upper levels of the atmosphere. This scheme is based on the cooling potential of volcanoes. The sulphur dioxide that is emitted during eruptions leads to the formation of sulphuric acid, which reflects the solar radiation and cools the planet. But finally the sulphuric acid could destroy the ozone layer, leaving the earth totally vulnerable to solar radiation.
Another solution, less dangerous, is – according to the experts – the reduction of high altitude cloud cover. Clouds that are formed at very high altitudes do not reflect much solar radiation but on the contrary cause a greenhouse effect. The higher they are the more intense the heating. And the warmer the environment the higher the level at which the clouds form. If sulphuric or nitric acid is introduced into these clouds their volume will decrease and they will not have such a heating effect on the surface of the earth. But if the spraying is not conducted carefully it could lead to the formation of more such clouds, with the result that rather than being cooled the planet will be further heated.
Because of these dangers, scientists emphasize that any such scheme must be implemented under very specific conditions, both chronologically and spatially, so as to have optimum effect. One such example would be ice at the poles, so as to stop the melting. But to date these schemes are being questioned by many and even the scientists that support them say that more research is needed.
Comment from W.H.: This “information” from Kouloglou. Up until now the criticism of “chemtrails” activists has mostly focused on the fact that the spraying is not a proposal but a reality. But perhaps the fraud is even worse in the sense that the spraying does not mitigate the global warming but in fact causes it.
Comment from Dylan Jones: Geoengineering is a proposal intended to cover over retrospectively the fact that spraying has been occurring since the onset of global warming and is most certainly intended to heat the planet rather than cool it.
It is an inverse version of the form of Geoengineering known as Thermal Radiation Management which involves the deployment of artificial particles (not sulphuric nor nitric acid) in optimum numbers so as to induce precipitation of higher clouds. In the ongoing reality an overseeding regime of too many particles has been established that increases higher cloud cover and consequent warming.
The form of Geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management involving the spraying of sulphates to reflect sunlight would only be effective over regions close to the equator.
Finally, the Paris agreement cap of 2 degrees was an increase from pre-industrial levels not from today and if you think extreme weather, shortages of food and water and migration is a problem only looming in the future, you need to look out the window.
Source: Direct Democracy Press
Economics matters enormously for the future, but its fundamental ideas are centuries out of date.
By Kate Raworth
(Kate Raworth is a senior visiting research associate at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute and a senior associate of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Her new book is Doughnut Economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist.)
No one can deny it: economics matters. Its theories are the mother tongue of public policy, the rationale for multi-billion-dollar investments, and the tools used to tackle global poverty and manage our planetary home. Pity then that its fundamental ideas are centuries out of date yet still dominate decision-making for the future.
Today’s economics students will be among the influential citizens and policymakers shaping human societies in 2050. But the economic mindset that they are being taught is rooted in the textbooks of 1950 which, in turn, are grounded in the theories of 1850. Given the challenges of the 21st century—from climate change and extreme inequalities to recurring financial crises—this is shaping up to be a disaster. We stand little chance of writing a new economic story that is fit for our times if we keep falling back on last-century’s economic storybooks.
When I studied economics at university 25 years ago I believed it would empower me to help tackle humanity’s social and environmental challenges. But like many of today’s disillusioned students its disconnect from relevance and reality left me deeply frustrated. So I walked away from its theories and immersed myself in real-world economic challenges, from the villages of Zanzibar to the headquarters of the United Nations, and on to the campaign frontlines of Oxfam.
In the process I realized the obvious: that you can’t walk away from economics because it frames the world we inhabit, so I decided to walk back towards it and flip it on its head. What if we started economics with humanity’s goals for the 21st century, and then asked what economic mindset would give us half a chance of achieving them?
Spurred on by this question, I pushed aside my old economics textbooks and sought out the best emerging ideas that I could find, drawing on diverse schools of thought including complexity, ecological, feminist, behavioural and institutional economics, and set out to discover what happens when they all dance on the same page. The insights that I drew out imply that the economic future will be fascinating, but wildly unlike the past, so long as we equip ourselves with the mindset needed to take it on. So here are seven ways in which I believe we can all start to think like 21st century economists:
- Change the goal: from GDP growth to the Doughnut.
For over half a century, economists have fixated on GDP as the first measure of economic progress, but GDP is a false goal waiting to be ousted. The 21st century calls for a far more ambitious and global economic goal: meeting the needs of all within the means of the planet. Draw that goal on the page and – odd though it sounds – it comes out looking like a doughnut. The challenge now is to create local to global economies that ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials – from food and housing to healthcare and political voice – while safeguarding Earth’s life-giving systems, from a stable climate and fertile soils to healthy oceans and a protective ozone layer. This single switch of purpose transforms the meaning and shape of economic progress: from endless growth to thriving in balance.
- See the big picture: from self-contained market to embedded economy.
Exactly 70 years ago in April 1947, an ambitious band of economists crafted a neoliberal story of the economy and, since Thatcher and Reagan came to power in the 1980s, it has dominated the international stage. Its narrative about the efficiency of the market, the incompetence of the state, the domesticity of the household and the tragedy of the commons, has helped to push many societies towards social and ecological collapse. It’s time to write a new economic story fit for this century – one that sees the economy’s dependence upon society and the living world. This story must recognize the power of the market—so let’s embed it wisely; the partnership of the state—so let’s hold it to account; the core role of the household—so let’s value its contribution; and the creativity of the commons—so let’s unleash their potential.
- Nurture human nature: from rational economic man to social adaptable humans.
The character at the heart of 20th century economics—‘rational economic man’—presents a pitiful portrait of humanity: he stands alone, with money in his hand, a calculator in his head, ego in his heart, and nature at his feet. Worse, when we are told that he is like us, we actually start to become more like him, to the detriment of our communities and the planet. But human nature is far richer than this, as emerging sketches of our new self-portrait reveal: we are reciprocating, interdependent, approximating people deeply embedded within the living world. It’s time to put this new portrait of humanity at the heart of economic theory so that economics can start to nurture the best of human nature. Doing so will give us—all ten billion of us to come—a far greater chance of thriving together.
- Get savvy with systems: from mechanical equilibrium to dynamic complexity.
Economics has long suffered from physics envy: awed by the genius of Isaac Newton and his insights into the physical laws of motion, 19th century economists became fixated on discovering economic laws of motion. But these simply don’t exist: they are mere models, just like the theory of market equilibrium which blinded economists to the looming financial crash of 2008. That’s why 21st-century economists embrace complexity and evolutionary thinking instead. Putting dynamic thinking at the heart of economics opens up new insights for understanding the rise of the one percent and the boom and bust of financial markets. It’s time to stop searching for the economy’s elusive control levers (they don’t exist), and instead start stewarding the economy as an ever-evolving system.
- Design to distribute: from ‘growth will even it up again’ to distributive by design.
In the 20th century economic theory whispered a powerful message when it comes to inequality: it has to get worse before it can get better, and growth will eventually even things up. But extreme inequality, as it turns out, is not an economic law or necessity: it is a design failure. Twenty-first century economists recognize that there are many ways to design economies to be far more distributive of value among those who help to generate it. And that means going beyond redistributing income to pre-distributing wealth, such as the wealth that lies in controlling land, enterprise, and the power to create money.
- Create to regenerate: from ‘growth will clean it up again’ to regenerative by design.
Economic theory has long portrayed a clean environment as a luxury good, affordable only for the well-off—a view that says that pollution has to increase before it can decline, and (guess what), growth will eventually clean it up. But as with inequality there is no such economic law: environmental degradation is the result of degenerative industrial design. This century calls for economic thinking that unleashes the potential of regenerative design in order to create a circular, not linear, economy—and to restore ourselves as full participants in Earth’s cyclical processes of life.
7. Be Agnostic about Growth: from growth-addicted to growth-agnostic.
To the alarm of governments and financiers, forecasts for GDP growth in many high-income countries are flat-lining, opening up a crisis in growth-based economics. Mainstream economics views endless GDP growth as a must, but nothing in nature grows forever, and the economic attempt to buck that trend is raising tough questions in high-income but low-growth countries. That’s because today we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive. What we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow. That radical flip in perspective invites us to become agnostic about growth and to explore how our economies—which are currently financially, politically and socially addicted to growth—could learn to live with or without it.
I am convinced that these seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist are fundamental to the new economic mindset this century demands. Their principles and patterns will equip new economic thinkers—and the inner economist in us all—to start creating an economy that enables everyone to prosper. Given the speed, scale and uncertainty of change that we face in coming years—and the diversity of contexts from Beijing to Birmingham to Bamako—it would be foolhardy to attempt to prescribe now all the policies and institutions that will be fit for the future. The coming generation of thinkers and doers will be far better placed to experiment and discover what works as the context continually changes.
What we can do now—and must do well—is to bring together the best ideas to create a new economic mindset that is never fixed but always evolving. The task for economic thinkers in the decades ahead will be to bring these seven ways of thinking together in practice, and to add to them. We have barely set out on this adventure in rethinking economics. Please join the crew.
Comment from W. Hall
Unfortunately the logic of “sustainability” activists is undermined by the same realities as undermine the US campaign “against” ISIS. The US claims to be fighting ISIS but in fact has created and sustains ISIS. Similarly with climate change. The Paris climate agreement claims to be a way of “dealing with” climate change (through profitable taxation, among other things, and emissions trading of ”bads”). But policy on global warming for decades has been to create it through climate modification (a generation ago the “ice age” was perceived as being a problem, suggesting that global warming would be a good idea). Climate modification is marketed as a way of “mitigating” global warming, but its effect is to exacerbate it. Trump has spoilt this game by saying that climate change is a fraud and radically modifying US environmental policy. This has prompted the military to come out against him in defence of the Paris climate agreement. Climate change has always been their business but now they are having to defend it against the presidency. Of course there is nothing pro-environmental about Trump’s policies. The same environmentally destructive practices continue as before. But the Paris climate agreement involves an element of taxation of big corporations that is not of any interest to Trump’s backers. It also involves taxation of the rest of us. But the military relies on state support, and on taxation, so they are going to be “with the ecologists” when it comes to climate policy. Ecologists will continue ineffective protests against secondary symptoms of this alliance, but the alliance is more securely based than the protests against it.
Varoufakis made comments against the neoliberal assumptions underlying emissions trading in his Guardian “Erratic Marxist” interview but unfortunately has not paid any systematic attention to the ideas whose surface he skims in the interview.
Kate Raworth’s “21st century economics” in a way spoils a familiar type of bipolar “divide and rule”, where the bad guys are entrepreneurs who think only about profit and the good guys are the socialists and ecologists, who are moral. Expelled from the scenario are the “conspiracy theorists” who suggest that the bad guys might really have something more than just their profits on their mind. Under “21st century economics” the entrepreneurs will become good guys, leaving today’s good guys at a loss because they will have to find a new role and a new justification for their existence.
This comment was initially published at DiEM25’s unofficial Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/diem25/ launched by “Een Don Quicot” just prior to DiEM 25’s official inauguration in Berlin.
Geoscientist J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, of the Transdyne Corporation, published a provocative paper April 21, 2017 in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, titled “Evidence of Variable Earth-heat Production, Global Non-anthropogenic Climate Change, and Geoengineered Global Warming and Polar Melting.” 
Readers may remember I’ve featured Dr Herndon’s innovative scientific research regarding weather geoengineering a couple of times: “Weather Geoengineering, Chemtrails, Aluminum and Alzheimer’s: The Four Horsemen Of The Weather Apocalypse,” and “Intentional Efforts To Cause Global Warming And Glacier Melting Indication Scientifically Found.”
One of the more revealing concepts Dr Herndon mentions in his recent article is something not many are willing to acknowledge as the cause of much grief affecting humans and the environment: “During the past 38 years, the standards of scientific inquiry have changed, particularly among those who depend upon government support. Logic-based challenges to current thinking have largely been replaced by consensus conformity.”
Sciences specifically affected by “consensus conformity” include, among others, the health sciences, especially vaccinology, or the ‘science’ of vaccines—more like pseudoscience, I offer, and microwave science, which lags behind from the World War II era in recognizing only thermal waves but not health-damaging non-thermal radiation waves .
As Dr Herndon states, “The oceans are our planet’s major reservoir for CO2.” OMG, how will they ever collect carbon taxes from the oceans? Or from humans, who exhale it with every outbreath? Isn’t that quite an insurmountable problem? Or, will they impose human CO2 taxes for our polluting the planet just by living and breathing on what cabal controllers ‘think’ is their scientific playground? Please excuse my tongue-in-cheekiness.
However, in Dr Herndon’s latest paper, we find questions , which need answering—and very soon.
- As NOAA and NASA are both prime sources of data utilized in climate models and assessments, and are apparently participants in the global covert tropospheric geoengineering activity, how objective are their data?
- Indeed, what are the purposes of spraying a toxic substance into the air we breathe on a near-daily, near-global basis? Surely, those closely connected with the operation know that it causes global warming and polar ice melting.
- Do government leaders realize that the intent of these covert geoengineering efforts is to cause global warming? Or are leaders being deceived, told that the tropospheric aerosol spraying is to prevent global warming?
- Is it being done to get at the petroleum and other natural resources beneath polar ice?
- Is tropospheric geoengineering being done to cause global warming so as to provide a basis for the United Nations to take control of major elements of sovereign nations’ economies? Or are more sinister motives involved?
- The military has researched weaponizing weather since 1947, but at what cost to human and environmental health? What have leaders been told that makes them acquiesce to a program that is no less than an assault on planet Earth?
- Who profits from this?
- Why are scientists promoting the idea of future geoengineering when they know, or certainly ought to know, that tropospheric geoengineering has been ongoing nearly worldwide for decades.”
Nevertheless, the scientific “nitty-gritty” aspects of Dr Herndon’s paper, I think, can be found in his discussion of “COVERT GEOENGINEERING CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING.” Here’s what he says in part:
Geoengineering is defined here as deliberate, large-scale activities aimed at modifying weather/climate systems [i.e., from the troposphere to the stratosphere to the ionosphere — all natural systems]. Weather modification programs have been employed by many nations at least since the 1960s, that is for over half a century, typically for agricultural purposes.”
There has not only been great secrecy involved, but governments have deceived citizens, either denying the aerial activity or falsely asserting that the observed aerial trails are simply contrails, ice crystals formed from water vapor in jet exhaust. In 2005 the United States Air Force distributed to government agencies and published online a document entitled “Contrails Facts”  which blatantly denied the existence of the observed particulate trails and falsely asserted that they are contrails.
65. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/USAF.pdf., Accessed April 17, 2017.
There is good evidence that the main particulate matter being sprayed into the troposphere worldwide is coal fly ash, the light ash from coal combustion by electric power companies that is considered to be too toxic to be allowed to exit smokestacks in Western nations [63,66-68].
>63. Herndon JM. Adverse agricultural consequences of weather modification. AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science. 2016;38:213-221.
66. Herndon JM, Whiteside M. Further evidence of coal fly ash utilization in tropospheric geoengineering: Implications on human and environmental health. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn. 2017;9: 1-8.
67. Herndon JM. Aluminum poisoning of humanity and earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: Implications for India. Curr. Sci. 2015;108:2173-2177.
68. Herndon JM. Obtaining evidence of coal fly ash content in weather modification (geoengineering) through analyses of postaerosol spraying rainwater and solid substances. Ind. J. Sci. Res. and Tech. 2016;4:30-36.
In the midst of official denial and misrepresentation, one can deduce from physical effects the purposes, if not the motives, for the near-daily, near-global coal fly ash tropospheric geoengineering. Aerosolized coal fly ash retards the fall of rain, at least until clouds become so overburdened that they let go with torrential downpours and storms. Coal fly ash makes atmospheric moisture more electrically conducting, which may be useful in military electromagnetic activities . Coal fly ash sprayed into the troposphere heats the atmosphere, and retards heat loss from Earth’s surface thus enhancing global warming. As coal fly ash settles to the ground, its typically dark gray color absorbs sunlight and alters albedo, again enhancing global warming .
69. Bertell R. Planet earth, the latest weapon of war: A critical study into the military and the environment. The Women’s Press: London; 2000.
Dr Herndon’s remarks in the above last paragraph certainly are incriminating about global warming being a man-made (anthropogenic) tragedy, along with an experiment all humans are forced to participate in unknowingly, unwillingly and in defiance of the Nuremberg Code .
n the Conclusions of his article, Dr Herndon offers these bone-chilling remarks:
Tropospheric aerosolized particulates, evidenced as coal fly ash, inhibit rainfall, heat the atmosphere, and enhance global warming. Evidence obtained from an accidental aerial release of an engineered material indicates there is an effort to melt glacial ice and thus enhance global warming. By ignoring ongoing tropospheric geoengineering, the IPCC climate assessments as well as the moral authority of the United Nations are compromised.
Fig. 7. Three aircraft flying simultaneously in the same physical environment in which contrail formation is possible in the air above Tucson, Arizona (USA) in 2011. Note that two display short contrails characteristic of rapid ice evaporation. The lengthy trail across the sky is not a contrail – otherwise it would have evaporated as quickly, and been as short, as the other two. Rather, the long trail is formed by emplaced particulate matter. Courtesy of Bornfree and Russ Tanner [from Dr Herndon’s paper]
Dr Herndon’s latest paper is written in scientific language. However, I encourage readers to ‘plough’ through it, as it explains much of what needs to be understood about how not only weather is being manipulated, but science, the environment and humans, as a result of clandestine mechanisms. I wish more humans were interested enough to oppose what’s happening to us and our beloved planet.
Thank you, Dr Herndon, for your unfailing scientific efforts.
 Article: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.pdf
In Spanish: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.s.pdf
 Press Release: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/variable_heat.pr.pdf
 NUREMBERG CODE
- The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
- The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
- The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
- The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
- No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
- The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
- Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
- The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
- During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
- During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick(2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016Catherine J Frompovich is now available
The ongoing global geoengineering assault has long since inflicted catastrophic and irreparable damage to the biosphere, climate, and life support systems of our planet (along with countless other forms of anthropogenic activity). It is truly incomprehensible that such blatantly obvious “climate intervention” programs can be carried out in skies all over the world, in plain site (for over 70 years), and still be officially denied.
Geoengineered skies, Clarksville, Tennessee. Photo credit: Brandy Glick
Though all former US administrations at least publicly pretended to care about the environment (while carrying out business as usual behind the scenes), the Trump administration doesn’t even go that far. The excerpts below were taken from a new UK Guardian article titled “Trump Presidency Opens Door To Planet-Hacking Geoengineering Experiments”
Harvard engineers who launched the world’s biggest solar geoengineering research program may get a dangerous boost from Donald Trump, environmental organizations are warning.
Under the Trump administration, enthusiasm appears to be growing for the controversial technology of solar geo-engineering, which aims to spray sulphate particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s radiation back to space and decrease the temperature of Earth.
What is the true agenda of the weather warfare insanity being carried out in our skies? What are the ultimate objectives? Why would the Trump administration enthusiastically embrace, promote, and back geoengineering/climate intervention programs given the fact that Donald Trump and most of his appointees patently deny that there is any global warming in the first place? More excerpts from the Guardian article are below.
While geoengineering received little favour under Obama, high-level officials within the Trump administration have been long-time advocates for planetary-scale manipulation of Earth systems.
David Schnare, an architect of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition, has lobbied the US government and testified to Senate in favour of federal support for geoengineering.
“Clearly parts of the Trump administration are very willing to open the door to reckless schemes like David Keith’s, and may well have quietly given the nod to open-air experiments,” said Silvia Riberio, with technology watchdog ETC Group. “Worryingly, geoengineering may emerge as this administration’s preferred approach to global warming. In their view, building a big beautiful wall of sulphate in the sky could be a perfect excuse to allow uncontrolled fossil fuel extraction. We need to be focussing on radical emissions cuts, not dangerous and unjust technofixes.”
GeoengineeringWatch.org billboard on I-80 near Elko, Nevada (3/20/17). Photo credit: Steve Small
… former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.
“Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” he said in 2008, before helping launch a geoengineering unit while he ran the right-wing think tank American Economic Enterprise. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”
Geoengineered skies, Hampstead, North Carolina. Photo credit: Sheen Perkins
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also appeared to support geoengineering, describing climate change as an “engineering problem.” ExxonMobil’s funding of the climate denial industry is under investigation by attorney generals in the United States, but it’s less well known that ExxonMobil scientists under Tillerson’s reign as CEO were leading developers of geo-engineering technologies
Asked about solutions to climate change at an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting in 2015, Tillerson said that a “plan B has always been grounded in our beliefs around the continued evolution of technology and engineered solutions.”
The ongoing atmospheric particulate (SRM) spraying is undeniable as film footage proves.
Geoengineers argue that such methods would be an inexpensive way to reduce global warming, but scientists have warned it could have catastrophic consequences for the Earth’s weather systems.
Scientific modeling has shown that stratospheric spraying could drastically curtail rainfall throughout Asia, Africa and South America, causing severe droughts and threatening food supply for billions of people.
Climate engineering is not a “proposal”, it has long since been a lethal reality. This reality cannot be hidden in plain site for much longer as the cataclysmic consequences from the ongoing climate engineering / weather warfare assault manifest in every conceivable way. All of us are needed and essential in the most critical battle to fully expose the geoengineering insanity. If we can expose it, we can stop it, make your voice heard.
May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to GeoengineeringWatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.