Quadrant of Belief on Climate Change and 9-11
Many issues divide public opinion around the world. This chart depicts just TWO prominent issues:
- belief that the International Panel on Climate Change ‘consensus’ is broadly correct on climate change – versus the belief that climate change is NOT a serious threat to humanity’s well being.
- belief that the official reports on the 9-11 atrocities is broadly correct – versus the belief that the 9-11 atrocities were not orchestrated by ‘Al Qaida’ and consequently the 9-11 attacks were a ‘false-flag’ operation.
A quarter century ago, neither topic was on the agenda.
In 1985, the atrocities of September 11th 2001 lay 16 years in the future. To state the obvious, no-one could have a view about 9-11 at that time.
‘Global Warming’ and ‘Human-Induced Climate Change’ were also topics unfamiliar to most scientists in the mid-1980s – let alone the general public. It’s was only around then that irrefutable evidence became widely available indicating steadily rising carbon-dioxide levels in the global atmosphere.
I was actively involved in the environment movement during the 1980s and took a keen interest in the climate change issue. It came to prominence around the same time that satellite data was confirming an alarming growth in the so-called ‘ozone hole’ over the poles, especially the Antarctic. At the time, hard-to-refute evidence that human activity was changing the entire global atmosphere in significant ways was a novelty.
In the 25 years since, the scientific community has moved slowly but decisively towards embracing the concern that the impacts of altering the greenhouse-gas composition of the atmosphere may indeed prove disastrous. The first International Panel on Climate Change report – back in 1990 – was a cautious document. Warnings from successive IPCC reports have grown progressively stronger.
Even so, significant numbers of people in the English-speaking world are deeply sceptical of the IPPC / masinstream scientific view about the seriousness as an issue of human-induced climate change. They tend to be suspicious they’re being sold a con. Some believe the science of climate has been perverted to suit a pre-set agenda. Some are concerned that international measures to tackle climate change are really a sinister, ‘globalist’ plot to centralize political and economic power.
I believe they are wrong on both counts.
No-one knows the future with precision. I’d very much like the sceptics to be correct in their belief that human-induced climate change is not a genuine phenomenon. But as I’ve explained previously, I wouldn’t gamble the future of the planet on a hunch. That’s irresponsibility verging on the crazy.
Regarding centralization, it is true that effective action on climate change requires strong worldwide collaborative action. But this is simply the reality of our globalized world, whether we like it or not. We should certainly guard against the entrenchment of corrupt sectarian power at every level. But like it or not, our whole species now has a collective impact on the planet such that unified action to manage this wonderful planet responsibly is necessary.
Interestingly, some of the most popular and heavily promoted ‘climate change sceptics’ are the very same people, often promoted by or employed within the Murdoch media, who also push an agressively pro-Israel, pro-war agenda. They also tend to be deeply ‘unsceptical’ about 9-11, missing few opportuinites to ridicule anyone querying the official 9-11 narrative.
The whole of Fox News in the USA might be entered as ‘Exhibit A’ for this proposition. In Australia, New Corp commentator Andrew Bolt is perhaps the quintessential pro-war Zionist shill who is ALSO a noisy climate change ‘sceptic.
Yet in fairness, there are also a lot of journalists and commentators working for Murdoch’s News Corp – and elsewhere in the mainstream media – who don’t share his climate change scepticism. Those commentators accept the scientific mainstream view on this subject and typically support strong action to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Overall, there’s a semblance of genuine debate about the topic of climate change within the mainstream media. A lot of the debate is poor quality. Fox News, notoriously, barely gives voice to the mainstream view and makes ‘climate change scepticism’ the norm. But most of the mainstream media – including most News Corp media – do provide space and airtime for different perspectives on the complex issue of climate change.
The mass media’s coverage of ’9-11 scepticism’ is very different. It has shown no interest whatsover in giving fair coverage to the sceptics.
Websites such as What Really Happened and Rense.com – aggregator sites that give first class coverage on issues connected with war and peace, civil liberties and Zionism – hold the strange view that climate change is a hoax, akin to the 9-11 false flag operation? I wonder why? I can think of various possibilities, but don’t pretend to know the answer.
It’s beyond me why anyone would think that the likes of Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Andrew Bolt are utterly wrong about foreign policy, civil liberties, war and peace, Israel, false flag attacks such as 9-11 and more – but correct and insightful about climate change scepticism.
Ultimately, I believe everyone is well-advised to make up their own mind about the complex and important questions of our time. To do this, we need all sides of issues fairly debated in the public domain.
The obvious determination of the western mass media to squash informed discusssion about the realities of 9-11 is a disgrace and suggests it is protecting people with much to hide.
Ignorance is no excuse for well-paid commentators who make a living foisting their opinions on others.
Participating in mass deception about topics such as mass murder is itself a serious crime.