Dean Baker, in a reply to a Mr. Hickel’s rebuttal to a previous article from Baker:

So now I have some reactions. Point two is the most revealing.

(1) Climate alarmism has been a political issue for a long time. It was always framed as if it had basis in science. Generally, the special interest pressure groups that had carried the banner for a clean environment morphed into a globalist and alarmist screech about mankind screwing up the climate. It began with some of the chemicals used in commercial products, like fluorocarbons, as “greenhouse gases”, but when most of these were banned or limited by law, and the public now accustomed to thinking in terms of “greenhouse gases” and laws to control them, they have finally settled on carbon dioxide as the thing that is going to kill us all if “we” don’t stop depending on “fossil fuels” and hydrocarbons. At least make drastic cuts in energy that burns.

Of course, climate is something that happens to the entire planet over time, so it’s an issue that they say requires actions globally. As in requiring global law. Binding treaties forcing the biggest sinning nations to cut fuel burning drastically.

Of course all politics eventually manifests in policies enacted by the real ruling groups and cliques (classes) and their cronies and paid operatives in power. The fruits manifest. Quo bono-who benefits?

France’s recent malaise helps paint a clear picture of who benefits. Macron’s administration raised the taxes on transportation fuel (gasoline and diesel) by about 25 cents, say the news reports. He clearly stated that the purpose of the tax was to comply with the standards required by the recent Paris “climate accord”. The people who have to commute to work, and the people who drive trucks and cars for a living and have limited incomes, the poor and middle classes, reacted by gathering in the capital and in other cities in massive protests.

In a twist of irony, in the statist impulse to control the life of the subjects of the kingdom, every driver and commuter covered by that punishing tax hike, the straw that broke the camel’s back, had been required to carry a yellow vest in the car in case of a mishap on the road.

Those yellow vests became a symbol of the people oppressed by the laws passed by their “moral superiors”. Those “superiors” are generally not hurt by those laws that hurt others. They are the privileged political class, that make sure of that.

It’s often repeated but in this case it’s because it’s true. We observe the actions of the loudest mouths pushing to cripple what is left of a free market in the energy sector, moralizing about saving the planet, are the ones who have had the most benefit from the multi-pronged attack energy-themed attack on the economies of the world.

These loudest mouths on the subject are among the most powerful of the richest, reviled one-percent. They do not do as they say. As Jesus said about the Pharisees, they lay grievous burdens on their lessers that they themselves will not lift with one finger.

My sister once pointed out that what you do says more about what you believe than what you say. The most prominent wealthy spokesmen for drastically cutting “our” carbon footprint in the earth, “wander to and fro” in their private jets. One news team did a survey recently of some of the richest Hollywood and corporate voices on the subject, asking if they would support a total ban on all private air travel. None but two replied, and those two said they would not.

(2) Remember LENR: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Renewables are renewables. Laws are laws. ALL the political and “environmentalist” voices calling for drastic cuts in “carbon” energy are ignoring the biggest thing that could not only bring growth, but exponential growth, in economic indicators, or better said, quality of life, while at the same time cutting carbon fuel usage to near zero.

In fact, they have been informed of this new scientific breakthrough and have ignored it as if it never was explained to them.

Eugene Mallove summed up his reporting on the scientific phenomena in his book “Fire From Ice”. In it he recaps the press conference held at University of Utah facilities where they presented their findings after several years of experiments with heavy water, diodes, and getting more energy output than input at low levels. In my memory they never called it precisely “cold fusion”, but it was widely reported as a claim for cold fusion.

Their experiments were repeated worldwide with mixed results. But you could be forgiven for thinking the “mixed” results are really “suspicious” results where they purportedly “disproved” the “claims”. Fleischmann and Pons have since been mostly vindicated.

But in the aftermath of the announcement, the MIT physics department announced their results as having no suggestion of any previously unknown process at all.

Eugene Mallove cried “FOUL!” in a very loud voice, told whoever would listen that the official MIT story was a LIE. “Buy the truth and sell it not” says the Bible. In this case the truth might cost the career of hot fusion research centers like those at MIT who get billions of dollars for their hot fusion research from government and quasi-government funds.

Mallove quit as a science journalist for an MIT publication and created the “New Energy Foundation” to raise funds and publish a periodical about the ongoing underfunded research into the discoveries and alternative energy research that big academic institutions were ignoring.

Mallove published an open letter to then-President Clinton and to every sitting Congressman at the time, pleading for investment into this technology, which promised to bring energy costs down to almost zero and making possible much cheaper space travel and everything else. With ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAN ENERGY. With ZERO carbon output.

Now, the people at Infinite Energy Magazine have said that they have contacted every major environmental group and they all have replied with nothing at all. They make clear that they have had to know. Somebody, at least at some of these places, opens the mail and reads it and sends it up the report-to totem pole. Presumably some notch in that totem pole nixes it by chanting “discredited”.

Mallove got support from Arthur Clarke, who also wrote the leaders pleading for investment, and even wrote about some of the technologies being researched with support in part by the New Energy Foundation.

So the people invested in these new energy sources say the environmentalists are not interested, but also that the energy companies are NOT the ones who are opposing them. Their most powerful opposition comes from the entrenched science departments in universities around the world. Remember also that many of these academic institutions have cozy deals with funding sources. The lion’s share of funding sources is governments, and governments are politically controlled.

You would expect an “environmentalist and people’s party” to demand more research into this.

Who is anti-science after all? Who put a lid on Tesla’s inheritance?


%d bloggers like this: