Global Warming is a Bigger Racket Than Scientology

17

In spite of the fact that it undoubtedly has positive benefits, organised religion can sadly become one of the biggest moneymaking rackets in existence. Televangelist Jimmy Baker is one of the most shifty false prophets Christianity has ever seen, and still only has a current net worth of $500,000 after a life of jet-setting and hookers. He probably has a creative bookkeeper, but that’s beside the point. Notorious Scientology guru David Miscavige has a net worth of $50 million gleaned from celebrities and other troubled souls with way too much money, or at least the means to find it. That sounds like a lot until you consider that Environmental Messiah Al Gore has a current net worth of $200 million, proving once and for all that Climate Alarmism is now the most profitable faith in terms of wealth accumulation for its elders on the planet. It’s a more profitable racket than Scientology, and that’s saying a lot.

Now I wouldn’t go so far as describing myself as a climate change denier. I just feel entitled to be able to ask a few questions without proponents of this theology becoming hysterical. Particularly when expenses are involved. With what I do for a living, a company credit card and expenses are involved. I have to be able to explain every expense. I could probably go out on the town on a three-day bender for no particular reason, but when the end of the month comes our accountant wants to know for what purpose, and will ask to see receipts. The powers that be will be asking how this expensive three-day bender helped our business. Now imagine if I behaved in the same manner as those in the climate alarmist industry. The conversation would go something like this:

Employer: “Now… there’s just this matter of $836 on booze, and two nights in a penthouse suite. What’s all that about?!?!?”

Me: “It’s a thing, ok?!?! Don’t be ignorant! The science is settled!!!”

Only in the private sector, I’d no longer have a job. When does science become indiscernible from religion? Presumably when you aren’t allowed to ask any questions.

Climate alarmism is a funny thing. Compare climate change to say, emphysema. If I’m ignorant, I can ask what causes emphysema. People won’t get hysterical. They’ll calmly explain causative effects like smoking, asbestos, pollution, etc. When I ask what should be done about it, it will be explained again very calmly. If a cost is incurred to prevent or treat it, this will again be calmly explained and rationalised. Broken down so that we know where the money is going and for what purpose. We’ve known about emphysema for decades, and yet the less enlightened of us are still allowed to ask questions. As with so many scientific problems, the science isn’t settled and nobody would be so presumptuous as to claim that it is. We’re still learning and developing various treatments and preventative measures.

You just don’t see the same kind of aggressive zealotry and hostility toward people asking questions in other areas of science as you do with the climate alarmism industry. Even the flat-earthers, the most maddening scientific conspiracy theorists there are, don’t see as much hostility as someone who suggests that Australia doesn’t really influence global CO2 levels. The level of hostility as always is a dead giveaway that even the most rabid climate alarmist isn’t fully at peace with the scenario that they’re proposing.

Climate alarmism is a relatively recent concern. Curiously, ‘the science was settled’ immediately, despite the enormity of what was being hypothesised, and the scientific fact that innovation and knowledge is a never-ending process. Is the science on anything ever really settled? No questions whatsoever were allowed. A red flag in terms of transparency, particularly with so much money changing hands. The hysteria that resulted from even the most superficial scrutiny of what was happening from the average person was remarkable. I’ve worked with enough people to know that when someone gets their back up to that extent over cursory scrutiny, they’re usually doing something not entirely above board and have something to hide.

It’s fine to levy a carbon tax, provided that you can justify that it will actually have any kind of discernible impact and benefit. And operate with transparency. Australia has less carbon emissions than international shipping, and pales into insignificance compared to most nations. Crippling our economy merely as a gesture makes about as much sense as halving the lettuce leaf on the plate of someone with anorexia and admonishing them for being a pig while saying nothing to the 300kg person beside them who went back for seconds at the buffet.

And even if you can cripple the big polluters like China and India, at what point does the advantage of slowing climate change outweigh halting their development and losing millions of their citizens to famine, both literal and economic? The big polluters know this, and can’t rationalise murdering millions of their own people and plunging themselves back into the Stone Age merely to profitably appease globalist climate alarmist Czars. Nobody in China wants their city to look like a shooting location out of Bladerunner, but by the same token they don’t want to wipe a third of their population off the books to enjoy superior air quality.

With the big polluters out of the equation, smaller cleaner countries become sacrificial lambs to appease the climate change gods. The insanity of imposing taxes and levies that will never achieve anything globally (because the deficit will always be made up in the growth of third world nations) in regard to what we are assured is a global problem only makes sense to those who are profiting from it. It is a gesture and nothing more. The regressive left love gestures, which is why they have taken to the climate alarmist industry like ducks to water.

One of the least sensible arguments you’ll hear is, “Even if it isn’t a problem, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and act anyway?” Perhaps. But if you follow that line of thinking, you should also rack up $80 grand in debt on a Nigerian love scam just on the off chance that the girl with poor grammar you’ve been sending money to actually exists and actually looks uncannily like Jennifer Lawrence.

Obviously, while the U.S. can make a difference, provided that the science is sound, like China and India Trump is wise to want to know a little about the situation before throwing U.S. industry and economic growth under the bus. And just like China and India, there’s a very fine line between being environmentally responsible, and plunging industry and those who depend upon it back into the Stone Age. There are a lot of people in hell thanks to senseless altruism.

Still trying to convince your left-leaning friends that this is a new money-spinning ideology for a new era? The parallels between Scientology and Climate Alarmism are increasingly difficult to ignore. Scientology is a feel-good self-help movement masquerading as science that frames itself as theology when it’s economically and politically advantageous to do so. Climate Alarmism is a theology that frames itself as a feel-good self-help movement masquerading as science when it’s economically and politically advantageous to do so. Scientology dictates that somebody who asks too many questions is a ‘suppressive person’. Climate Alarmism dictates that somebody who asks too many questions is a ‘climate change denier’. Those who cross Scientology are subject to intimidation and harassment. Those who cross Climate alarmism are subject to intimidation and harassment.

Scientology is a seemingly endless and costly process with no real indication of resolution, a perpetual addressing of problems with a perpetual revenue stream. Climate Alarmism is a seemingly endless and costly process with no real indication of resolution, a perpetual addressing of problems with a perpetual revenue stream. Scientology has an incredibly wealthy hierarchy, despite having a mission statement of selflessness and altruism that is at odds with their assets and lifestyle. Climate Alarmism has an incredibly wealthy hierarchy, despite having a mission statement of selflessness and altruism that is at odds with their assets and lifestyle. I could go on, but you’re probably getting a sense of déjà vu by now. Regardless of how serious a problem climate change is, the industry that it has spawned is in no uncertain terms a bigger racket than Scientology, and the structure of both enterprises are almost indistinguishable.

It’s your XYZ.

Photo by annalyn

SHARE
Previous articleRyan on The Zero Filter Show
Next articleWho’s afraid of Barack Obama?
Eh?nonymous was a thoroughly repellent unemployed social justice warrior until a one in a million glitch in his Facebook account affected the algorithms in his news feed, omitting posts from his much loved left leaning Huffington Post and I F---ing Love Science, and inexplicably replacing them with centrist and conservative newsfeed items that slowly dragged him kicking and screaming into the light beyond the safe space that Mr. Zuckerberg had so carefully constructed for him. It’s a long road to recovery, but every Mark Steyn share he sees in his newsfeed is like another day clean from social justice addiction.
  • Deplorable Pepe
  • David king

    Al Gore is always jet setting here and there , presumably he doesnt add to the problem ,maybe his jets run on fresh air.

    • Deplorable Pepe

      They are a bunch of hypocrites,for sure.
      http://www.therebel.media/top_7_climate_change_hypocrites

    • Deplorable Steve B

      And his smug sense of self satisfaction…

    • Deserttrek

      just like schwarzenegger , they buy “offsets” they are all evil manure and should be eliminated like the fungus they are

  • Wide Awake

    Even if global warming exists, there is zero evidence to suggest it is a man made phenomenon. You need only look at what Dr Roy Spencer says about climate change and the fact that NASA climate change scientists will not debate him to know it’s a farce. There is even evidence to suggest that higher carbon levels in the atmosphere are increasing plant growth.

  • Trog

    Food for thought. On another site I read a post from a fellow Aussie of a greenish twinge who had just come back from snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef and was complaining loudly that the “whole thing is dying”!
    I replied “the reef is 2300km long….just how far did you bloody well snorkel?”
    Still awaiting a response.

    • Karen Dwyer

      :-)))))

      Trog in fine fettle is a very fine thing indeed.

  • Bikinis not Burkas

    I’m still waiting to be told who the bastards were that created the climate change that gave us the coal, oil and gas that we enjoy today?
    What’s that I here you say, manking didn’t exist then and it is a cyclical occurrence.
    You mean that man made global climate change is another hoax like religion, invented to extract money from and to control the masses, well I never!

    • yomama

      Wait ’til the earth flips! Woops…how’d that happen?

  • Deserttrek

    no such thing as a denier … accepting that as a rational term makes one irrrational

  • justmeanu

    Verily I say unto you Global Warming is evil. All ye whom so much as emiteth one molecule of C02 shall be dammed to rot in hell. Oh woe you nonbelievers, Payeth thy tax to the God of Green. Drag farmers from the lands that floodeth the greenhouses with C02 to force plants to grow. Stone the drinkers of fizzy drinks, thou shall rot in hell forever.

  • Johannes Archer

    I`m still wondering why sea levels will rise as the icebergs melt. Last time I put a glass of water in the freezer, it expanded, meaning if the ice melts, the sea levels will decrease.

  • Peter Wratten

    Just to add another dimension to this equation – consider the problem with the statistics. In any normal information gathering exercise it is a requirement to have a wide range of informants for the conclusion to be valid. For instance, we often hear on the news that 25% of Australians love/hate the current prime minister. Now we know that nobody rang us all and then worked out the percentage. Rather, they ring a given number of people and extrapolate from that. Would the conclusion be valid then if they only rang 100 people? Obviously not. For any conclusion to be useful then you would need at least several thousand respondents – preferably 10s of thousands. Now apply this situation to the climate change argument. Exponents have suggested that temperature change has occurred in the last 100 years or so and then drawn their conclusions from that. In the context of the life of the planet 100 years is a bit like phoning 2 people in a survey. We are told that the Ice Age alone took several million years. There is more unrecorded climate data for this planet than that recorded. So it is statistically useless information. We see the same type of nonsense with information on the reef. Much of the damage currently being hyped was caused by cyclones and naturally takes a few years to recover – this stuff grows slowly. So to look at the damage from a couple of years and suggest that its demise is near is not terribly scientific to say the least.

  • yomama

    Same goes for the cancer business. All a scam to make money.

  • Hyper Future Vision

    Excellent article, thank you 🙂

    It is so refreshing to see someone actually point out that Australia is being economically shafted by this BS. It really is China, India, Africa and a glut of other third world shit heaps that we should be taking a good look at. China has at least attempted to do something about their situation but it wasn’t enough. Africa’s population is expanding well beyond the point of sustainability, which doesn’t seem to phase world vision street hustlers who peddle compassion for a day job. Westerners are actually going to aid Africans reach wasteland status very quickly through unthinking compassion which is way too much irony for me to handle.

    The Pentagon is well aware of this issue and is baffled at how to deal with the rise of Mega Slums that will fill third world countries in the future:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/pentagon-video-warns-of-unavoidable-dystopian-future-for-worlds-biggest-cities/

    Something that might interest everyone is a Stefan Molyneux video posted earlier this month debunking “global warming” and bringing “Global Greening” into the picture. Plants need CO2, right now they are experiencing a boom caused by overpopulation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCU6bzRypZ4

    Look at any statistic and compare it to the world population growth especially graphs that show population growth and CO2 levels… they fit together rather well, this site has the exact graph I am describing:

    http://www.21stcentech.com/climate-skeptics-point-world-population-real-problem/

    The alarmism we are facing is due to overpopulation in third world countries. Several western countries currently have abysmal near zero reproduction rates so its literally not our fault. We just happen to have enough wealth accumulated that globalists believe they have the right to guilt trip us into accepting carbon taxes so they can have even more money to feed their western degeneration apparatus. Whites need to start realizing how gullible we actually are, so these multinational elites can stop taking advantage of “white guilt” to get their own way with everything.

    The best thing the western world can do is to send all of our non-breeding, culture destroying leftards who are responsible for most of our problems to third world countries to show ’em how its not done. I don’t know how long they would last before the natives get sick of their degenerate ways and stone them to death but its worth a shot.

    I am all about nature however and I support any tech that will allow the environment to be better preserved in our country but only if its for nationalistic reasons that will actually benefit Aussies. Simply reducing or eliminating our third world/muslim immigration intake will eliminate most of the environmental issues that truly concern me anyway.

  • Dan Flynn

    So do you believe we need to address climate change or not? You mention that you are not ‘necessarily’ a climate change denier but then you talk about reasons why we don’t need to do anything about it. This is a very confused article. Sure, there are phonies that gravitate to any movement, but we’re talking about human and animal species’ ability to live on planet earth here, it’s pretty serious no? Let’s try and separate the actual needs of the planet from the clowns who might be profiteering on the sidelines. We need our planet and there are things we are doing that are fucking it up. That’s a bad thing and comparing Al Gore with Scientology will not change that.