The Formulating of "Climate Change"

or, "The Forging of a Tool"

Perhaps we can track the thinking of the elites by examining how their manufactured crises have evolved.

• 1970s Global cooling

• 1980s Acid rain / pollution

• 1990s O-zone layer / pollution

• 2000s Global warming

• 2010s Climate change

• 2020s Climate change / COVID-19

1973

I think global cooling probably fell by the wayside because it is simply too obviously untrue. A few unusually cold winters in the 1970s were not enough material with which to sustain a long-running public fear campaign.

1989

Acid rain is not an immediate enough threat for people to buy into. It also sounds fantastical and is therefore hard to believe in. Like “white genocide”, it is a concept that, even if is true, doesn’t sound true.

1997

Pollution is different. Every sensible person finds the sight of pollution tangibly ugly and the concept of polluting the planet deeply objectionable. But, being a problem whose solution is really with government and industry, pollution isn’t a great tool for browbeating, inconveniencing or demoralising the general public. Therefore it isn't a great tool for controlling them.

1992

The “hole in the O-zone layer” was something you heard about constantly in the early 1990s. I don't know why this one went away. Perhaps the evidence for it was not convincing enough (and couldn’t be made convincing enough). Perhaps the media/industry/governments/NGOs were not yet united enough to make the case compelling. Or perhaps it genuinely was a threat but, as with pollution, the solution to it was really up to industry, not the general public: stop using CFCs in your products.

Alaska is not present in this photo, because it had already been swallowed up by the melting ice from the Arctic

Then it was global warming. If I recall correctly, this concept became prominent around about 1994 and became more so during the rest of that decade. I think it eventually dwindled away because, like its opposite from the 1970s, it was simply contradicted by evidence on the ground. Yes, some places were hotter than before, but some years they weren’t, and in previous centuries they’d been hotter anyway, and some places were positively colder than before. Global warming was corroborated on the ground only sometimes, and only some places, and even then, only conditionally or temporarily. It was not a reliable friend to the tyrant.

2001

And that brings us to “climate change”.

I think “climate change” was arrived at because of its sheer open-endedness. The threat is not one effect, but many different effects. Contradictions can be palmed off as inevitable since the climate is so complex, so obviously some effects will contradict others; it is not a single one-way effect, but a spaghetti of many different malfunctions. Best of all, any unusual weather phenomena can be co-opted into it as yet more evidence of “climate change” - because the climate really is constantly changing. Finally, unlike acid rain or global warming or cooling, climate change does not require any particular symptoms to be perceptible to the general public; due to the nature of the “threat”, by definition they cannot expect to be able to see it, therefore they have to take on trust that it is happening at all. The contest was no longer between the claims you’re hearing and the reality you’re seeing (or not seeing), but between your need to trust the powerful and your willingness to defy them. Most people have plenty of the former and precious little of the latter.

This open-endedness was equalled by COVID-19. Three years later, nobody can list “the symptoms of covid”, because such a vast range of symptoms have been ascribed to it. It’s a disease that makes you cough, sneeze, vomit, fatigued, nauseous, lose sense of smell and/or taste, unable to sleep, unable not to sleep, and “confused”. It can give you breathing problems, hearing problems, numerous skin problems, itchy eyes, bluish lips or face, abdominal pains, hallucinations and delirium, chest pain, diarrhoea, swollen fingers, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, myocarditis, blood clots… astonishing versatility for a simple respiratory virus.

As one expert explained:

Really, nothing is off the table when it comes to COVID. I always get texts from people asking if something they’re experiencing is normal. Well, there’s nothing that’s truly abnormal when it comes to COVID — literally almost anything goes and we don’t exactly know why.

By 2022, covid had absorbed the effects of just about every other ailment known to man, like a huge conglomerate buying up its pesky little rivals. Even the yearly flu could not compete:

What this meant for the public was that covid became the go-to bogeyman. Whatever happened, it was probably covid that did it. Just as “racism”, “anti-Semitism”, “homophobia” and “transphobia” are now absorbed into the single umbrella concept of “hate”, covid became something that was at once mind-bogglingly complex yet very easy for the dumbest member of the public to grasp, and point at and get hysterical about. The single word “hate” covers everything that could possibly be wrong about a person’s worldview. “Covid” covers everything that could possibly be wrong about their biology.

And “climate change” covers everything that could possibly be wrong about their natural environment. Too hot? Too cold? Too rainy? Not rainy enough? Sounds like Climate Change has struck (yet) again.

Another aspect of covid that is relevant to climate change is the effect that covid’s open-endedness had on the public. The disease was so turbulent, its style and ferocity of transmission so varied, its behaviour in the body so unpredictable, and its symptoms so numerous, Joe Public could never possibly understand it. This made him completely dependent on “the experts” to understand it for him.

There is nothing wrong with this, in and of itself. We have always depended on experts to understand things we cannot. The issue is that, at least in theory, experts in the past had a high degree of moral probity in how they used the trust and authority vested in them by the public. But this is, ahem, academic now, because the public fell for the confidence trick and became completely in thrall to the experts, almost gasping for their next pronouncement.

As I wrote in November 2020:

WHO CUSTODES THE COVIDIANS?

For the powers-that-be, COVID virus+lockdown (problem+solution) is the perfect tool to use against the public.

It can be invoked, threatened, implemented, revised, expanded, revoked, reintroduced... Sometimes the analyses of the virus will make sense, but they don’t need to. Sometimes the uses of the lockdown will make sense, but they don’t need to. It is all entirely at the whim of the government, because the media will ratify whatever decisions it makes as perfectly justified and proportionate, and completely in line with established precedent, even though there are so many contradictions along the way that there is no established precedent!

A BLM rally without masks is safe, because [bullshit]. A Remembrance Day parade with masks is unsafe, because [bullshit]. You think this doesn’t make sense? Well, you just don’t understand science.

The virus is endlessly malleable as a “problem”, the lockdown endlessly malleable as a “solution”.

Never have so many been so controlled so easily.

Government encouraged the awe of experts, then used it to give the public a new moral prism with which to view life and the behaviour of their peers, and even the government itself. The way to evaluate any government action was to judge whether it did enough, or did not do enough, to combat covid. And since the government had got them terrified of covid, the public’s verdict was always that it was not doing enough, authorising it to do ever more. Even now, three years on when it is crystal clear that covid was never a serious threat, the public still believe that the government did not do enough to combat it. The sheer success of the brainwashing is astounding.

Which brings us back to climate change. Demonstrably, the public was “ready” for the oppression of 2020, the remodelling of society, the change in the relationship between it and the powerful… the public was ready for all of that before covid. But the experience that followed will have readied them for more extreme things. Perhaps that was the whole point of covid.

Meantime, the powerful will also have learned a lot from the experience: the sheer usefulness of fear, the sheer value of giving the plebs a group to hate (anti-vaxxers, covid deniers), the sheer irresistability of a solution (the vaccine), and the sheer pleasure of ritual and ceremony to display one’s virtue (wearing masks, banging pots and pans).

For all that, covid was limited in one respect: what it justified demanding of the public. In the end, its cause was always the same: people are in too close proximity to each other and not taking enough precautions against transmission.

Climate change is not like this at all. On the contrary, it is so “open-ended” in terms of causes that the powers-that-be have the opposite problem: what to demand of the public in the name of combating it. I think this problem was recognised some time around 2005.

While the general concept of “climate change” could be used to terrify the public (especially children), it didn’t suggest any particular ways to control or inconvenience them. Therefore, if any particular ways were tried, some people might point out the absurdity of the exercise. There was a need for specific causes. The storyline was settled upon but it needed characters, specific variables that the public mind could be focused upon.

This is why, today, though we still have the general vague over-arching threat of “climate change”, we also have specific causes of it (carbon, nitrogen, etc.). Those causes can be blamed on choices made by the public. This is how the public are transformed from a hapless audience watching the storyline play out, to active agents who, by their choices, goad the characters and thus enable the terrible drama to continue. That makes the public culpable, and that makes them shameable, and that makes them controllable. Demands can now freely be made of them.

The most obvious among these just now is probably “eat the bugs”, but we should expect many other demands to be made of us and many other choices to be foisted upon us, because the elites have built themselves a toy which will never stop producing new accusations against us, to which we will have no refutation since we are, indeed, human.

Climate change is, like COVID-19, a problem where the public cannot dispute the causes, cannot deny our culpability in the causes, cannot judge the evidence, cannot doubt “the "symptoms”, cannot refuse the solutions, cannot measure the success of those solutions once implemented, and, given the gravity of the problem, certainly cannot disagree that more should be done, always. The show - the charade - can literally go on forever.

This evolution has really been the quest for a tool that converts the general public into hapless creatures that are always guilty and thus always deserving and desirous of correction. Whether it is the viruses we are susceptible to or the terrible damage our existence wreaks upon our planet, we are always at fault. Thank God there are powerful people able and willing to rescue Earth from us.