The woman in the green dress burst out into laughter. "Lying isn't the proper word anymore for what is happening," she said. "The word 'ridiculous' describes the scene better. Society is told by us scientists that our world is trapped in a vicious global warming trend that mankind has caused. We cite as proof that many mountain glaciers are in retreat, meaning that they are getting shorter. Indeed, this has been the general trend since the early-1700s when the last Little Ice Age ended and the Earth was beginning to re-warm. We use this natural trend to vilify mankind. Of course we say nothing about the fact that half of the over 600 mountain glaciers that are monitored by the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Group are advancing again. We say nothing, because it doesn't fit the doctrine that vilifies mankind and hides the reality of the coming Ice Age. We also hide the fact that our colleges at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Irkutsk, in the mountains north of the Mongolian Desert, have observed a massive reduction in annual average temperatures there of almost two degrees over four years. That's a huge drop. But we say nothing, because it doesn't match the doctrine. So we lye. But it gets more ridiculous still. When the evidence of the presently ongoing global cooling cannot be hidden, as in Greenland where the Jakobshan glacier is now advancing twice as fast than in recent memory, being pushed by the kilometers thick Greenland Ice Sheet that is getting thicker again, we hide the evidence of the ongoing cooling and say that the evidence proves global warming. One of our young global warming promoters tried to justify the ridiculous by suggesting that scientists need to find what he calls 'the right balance between being effective and being honest.'"
The woman sighed. "I find this trend alarming," she continued quietly. "By scrapping the truth as a worthless commodity mankind is scrapping its humanity. There is no love reflected in the process of lying to one-another. Yes, loosing the truth is a great tragedy, but loosing our love for one-another is an infinitely greater tragedy still. If we loose that, what have we got left? Some two thousand years ago a person who had had been associated with a movement that worked wonders on the platform of love wrote for posterity as if it were the pinnacle of his life-experience that God is Love, and he added that without love in our hearts we cannot see God. The man's name was John. Indeed, I must agree with him, that without love in our hearts we cannot see our humanity, we loose ourselves. John's mentor, a man named Christ Jesus, once pointed out in a story that if a person comes before the altar of God and a brother has ought against him, he should step away from the alter and first be reconciled with his brother. Isn't he saying that without love one cannot see God, so what's the point then in stepping up to the altar? Isn't he also saying to us, what's the point in being scientists, whose altar is the truth, without love for one-another as an active response by which our discoveries mean something and give us a glimpse of our humanity?"
"So, how is one to react to that?" said the man in black, taking the microphone again. "Some researchers announce that the Ice Age transition will be slow and extend over tens of thousands of years. Others point to ice core samples from southern Greenland that they say contain evidence of enormous temperature swings at the point of the last Ice Age transition, with some of the huge fluctuation lasting for decades. Then they quickly drilled in the far north where the temperature never drops below minus ten degrees in summer, where one wouldn't expect such fluctuation to be found. And sure enough they found none. That is supposed to prove that the coming Ice Age transition won't be of any consequence. Shouldn't our love for one-another prompt us to react in the opposite manner? If there is the lightest chance that the Ice Age transition imposes a severe crisis that no one might survive, or only a very few, shouldn't we do whatever is necessary to upgrade our world as fast as is humanly possible to protect future generations, and that we do this out of the riches of our love for our humanity? To me, the term love describes something far more than just the absence of hate. It reflects an impetus for action. I make strong demands on love for such a response. I demand active manifests as manifests of love. I suggest that the potential of this kind of love is lost, and of all love really, if we cannot look at one-another's face and see in that face the face of God. It has to be that way, no matter whatever this might mean. To me it means that we embrace all future generations in that love."
"Jaworowski suggests that the transition could be as short as a single year or as long as 50 years," interjected the man dressed in yellow.
The man in black nodded his approval. "Until we become truthful with ourselves we really won't know what the truth is," he said, speaking into the microphone from where he stood. "The only thing that we can do in this case is to respond to what might be the most urgent scenario that could possibly happen, which is the Ice Age transition that is near and might happen rapidly. We would have to respond to it in an emergency manner even if all the global warming rhetoric was credible and the worst case global warming scenario could come true. The worst-case global warming prediction is that the re-warming of the Earth to something close to the most recent interglacial optimum would melt enough ice to raise the surface of the oceans by seven feet over the space of a few centuries. I wouldn't call this a catastrophe. The low lands that would be affected can be protected with dikes. Some effected cities might be relocated. We would certainly be able to live quite well with all of these changes if they fully came to pass. The cost for the changes might be substantial, but they would hardly be enough a reason to shut down mankind with the presently demanded murderous depopulation that is staged to result from the large-scale banning of mankind's energy use. In fact agriculture would be greatly benefited by warmer global temperatures. The Sahara and other deserts would become green again as they once were during the warm period of 7000 years ago. The global warming prediction even at its maximum would thus be little more than a minuscule annoyance in comparison with the far more likely Ice Age future that has the potential to wipe out the global food supply, and with it potentially the whole of mankind. Isn't it obvious into which direction our efforts should be focused? Instead of shutting ourselves down into a state of economic impotence by shutting our energy supply down, we should be developing ourselves with ever greater and more-efficient energy resources to create the infrastructures that make us independent of the worst possible future climatic changes. That should be our goal. It would be a love-powered approach to the future, while shutting ourselves down in the shadow of scary fantasy-tales amounts to nothing less than a gross contempt for human life, for our children, for our humanity, and therefore even for ourselves."
"This means, as I have said before, that we have to protect our food supply with indoor agriculture," said Steve and took the microphone again. "We have to create technologies that enable us maintain the climate that is needed for our agriculture. Technology is a factor that we control. We have no control over the dynamics of the universe, but we do have total control of how we respond to the changes that these dynamics cause here on the Earth. We have to assume this control as fast as possible for the potential chance that the Ice Age transition isn't a long way off as it might be, and isn't slow in unfolding as many people hope it is, and isn't as radically deep-reaching as society is presently pretending by refusing to even consider it. The bottom line is that when potentially the entire existence of mankind is at stake we simply can't afford to gamble. We can't take the lightest risk, because if we were to loose the gamble we would risk the possible extinction of mankind, and for what? Such gambling is immorally and absolutely unjustifiable. In fact, it's utterly insane to even consider it. So the question isn't whether the Ice Age will hit us in a hundred years from now, or a thousand, or even ten thousand years from now. The question is, are we prepared to eliminate the risk as soon as possible, because it could hit us far sooner and harder than we wish, or hope, or dream? The question has to be, what are we doing about it night now? That is why I say we need a new strategic defense initiative for the global defense of mankind against this very real threat that the astrophysical cycles of the universe impose on our planet. Whether we like it or not, we have to learn to live under the conditions that the universe has in store for our planet."
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -