Mother of a hoax

A headline caught my eye today. It was a case of over-sensitivity caused by too many hits on the same nerve – the climate change nerve, but it illustrated the masterful social engineering that went on 20 years ago. The headline was from the Mother Nature Network:

Climate change gives gardeners new options

Curious, I thought, it’s probably about shifting climate zones, and it was.

The US Department of Agriculture has updated its Plant Hardiness Zone Map. It lets you know what plants or crops will thrive in your area and what won’t. Because of the slight late-twentieth century warming, those areas have changed a bit.

They use updated climate data to better reflect the warming observed over the last 20 years. I don’t need to remind anyone that this is no proof of human-caused global warming, nor that it’s dangerous. The USDA give their own caution:

“Climate changes are usually based on trends in overall average temperatures recorded over 50-100 years,” the USDA website explains. “Because the [new map] represents 30-year averages of what are essentially extreme weather events [the coldest temperature of the year], changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.”

It’s an interesting article, though being the Mother Nature Network they couldn’t resist including anecdotal accounts from a few gardeners to show that “many farmers and gardeners say they already have all the evidence they need” of global warming.

But it’s the presence of the hot-button phrase “climate change” I want to focus on. The iconic term tells you immediately that whatever is being talked about is always negative, never positive, it destroys useful and cuddly forms of life such as corn and polar bears, fosters dangerous forms of life like snakes and diseases, has never happened before and is, naturally, caused by us and our selfish life styles.

The tactic of redefining “climate change” to mean changes brought about by human actions has been a total success. Those evil people who invented it must be well satisfied. It’s gone so much further than global warming on its own might have.

For the official definition of climate change we must go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The text of the Convention is available on their web site. Under Article 1 Definitions we find this:

2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

This was the beginning, written in May 1992, and in nearly 20 years the definition has been wildly productive. Few people now doubt we’re doing all the climate change.

Because see how the writers left two types of climate change on the table? How the hell does anyone tell the difference between “attributed directly or indirectly to human activity” and “natural climate variability”?

Well, the important point is this: the creators of this wicked piece of new-age science allowed themselves to determine the difference between human and natural climate change—in other words, to say exactly what is climate change and what is not. It was not a matter any more of pure science or scientific principles, it became a matter of agenda.

All that is required is to proclaim that a certain phenomenon, event or process is “attributed” to human activity.

Because natural events don’t “attribute” themselves to anything; they simply occur. Attribution is a human activity, governed by human thinking, intentions and aversions.

That is how we now hear that extreme weather events are being “caused” by us. That is where the term “climate weirding” was made possible, because it certainly has no basis in meteorology.

The redefinition of climate change is a piece of social engineering. Surprisingly, it goes widely unremarked yet it’s central to the global warming fraud. If you returned the concept of “climate change” to the natural world where it belongs and resurrected the concept of “anthropogenic global warming” (which is where it began) then it would be necessary at every step to clearly identify the difference between them.

The bureaucrats driving the carbon footprint colossus wouldn’t have got this far because we wouldn’t have believed them. Scientists everywhere would be questioning their assumptions and conclusions without fear of losing their funding, even their positions.

Visits: 31