Green People and Their Methodologies. The Greens have been with us for
decades, if not centuries. In modern times, say since the seventies,
let's look at the steps of their evolution. These are even today the
steps to recruit and retain. Green is Clean is an unquestioned premise, the mantra of the movement. Green is Good
is its twin sister. This is not a short note to denounce green ideas
and green solutions. It is a short piece to examine methods, and the
power and willingness of the true believers to promote their green agenda and/or religion.
A. Believe that green is good. (It is.) Believe that mankind is
destroying the planet. Believe that green solutions are correct - and in
fact the only solutions to save the planet. These give the proper gravitas to the cause.
B. Educate the public to these beliefs - the first tool of recruitment. Sign up the press - a key tool. Use the word "anthropogenic" often. (It means, roughly, we did it.)
C. Develop a political agenda. Get involved and get politicians on
board. Attach the movement to a political party. Work tirelessly.
Demonize the non-believer. The introduction of corn-based ethanol was
one of the first victories. It remains unassailable to the many
scientific and economic reasons why it was a bad idea in the first place.
D. Cheat - scientifically. Devise complex quasi-mathematical,
statistical projective models of global warming and then extrapolating
to the cause of warming to be man made. Despite the fact that few
understand the models, wrapping the movement with in scientific flag was
and remains crucial to co-opting the skeptical. Using scientific
arguments elevates the rationale of the cause - always does. Despite the facts that the models have been spiked by bad data, or good data has been diminished, assert the validity of the models.
E. Cheat - economically. Develop economic policies to elevate the costs
of non-green solutions (e.g. oil, coal) so that green alternatives
(e.g. wind) become competitive.
F. Cheat - politically. Regulate non-green solutions out of existence. Coal is going, going. ...
All of this is achieved without much open public debate, certainly no open scientific debate.
Now comes the unconsidered yet very green issue: dust.
Dust. One item that most global climate change advocates and
modelers have missed is the effects of dust. Dust, technically called
aerosols, is often swept up into the stratosphere by storms and tornados
from arid regions of the world, is most difficult to analyze. It also
arises from power plants - probably to a lesser degree. The amount of
dust in the atmosphere can very well counter the claims of greenhouse
gas effects, producing a type of global cooling, for which there is some
twenty+ years of evidence. Some claim the may be a cyclical phenomena
in the global climate. It seems certain that serious volcanic eruptions
over the ages have had this effect. But exact and continuing
measurements over a long period of time are simply missing. Dust
landing on snowfall can absorb more heat than purely landed snow. The
consequence is an apparent snow-melt, not due to warming, not due to
greenhouse gases, but simply an advent of heat absorption. Another
wrinkle in the pat equation of those who believe in a simplistic model.
But will they consider it as a possibility?
