RSS

Imagine There’s No Science…

February 23, 2010 | Einar Du Rietz | Comments 0 |

…it can get scary if you try. Einar Du Rietz has a bad dream.

Final Frontier

The worst problem, according to experts, is not that the IPCC both screwed up on several points and tried to hide the facts. The real threat is that the “so called ‘Skeptics’” might try to gain momentum for their own obscure beliefs. To get some historical perspective, we managed to dig up fragments from an interview by CFACT.Earth, made sometime during mid 15

th century, with the High Priest of the Intergovernmental Panel on Earth Preservation, Professor Terra Isma.

- Professor, are the recent revelations about fraud in your report a sign that maybe you were wrong from the start?

  • Not at all! First of all, it’s a giant job to save the world and a few mistakes are unavoidable. Secondly, you have to remember that there are powerful forces out there, trying to sabotage our work. Scientifically, the debate is over. The few globalists crying out loud present new theories that are unfounded and should not be taken seriously.
  • New theories? But already 700 years ago, astronomers established that the earth was round. Why do you leave this out of your report?
  • It’s impossible to substantiate what happened so long ago, even as we now have included the research in our new report to shut the big mouths up. What counts is what we can see today, and it’s the imminent risk of the world tipping over.
  • And the Hockey Puck? You included this in your earlier report, took it away and now it’s there again, even though your own scientists admit it’s worthless?
  • OK, maybe she’s not really a puck. Maybe more like a home-made pizza. Or even a rugby ball! But that’s not the point. Even the globalists admit the earth is not entirely global, they say it shrinks a bit on what they call the poles, but don’t forget, you can fall off a rugby ball too.
  • But how about gravitation?
  • It’s a beautiful idea, but honestly would you risk the future of the entire world on a theory? After all, we are doing this for our grandchildren.
  • How about the earlier claims that hoards of people were falling off on the other side of the mountains, or that half of the population in Frisia had disappeared?
  • A small mistake. The son of one of my colleagues disappeared over the mountain top, but it turned out he just went to buy a newspaper. Frisia is a dull area. Impossible to find a decent restaurant at lunch time, but maybe the figures were a bit exaggerated.
  • So you kept all this secret before the big international conference in Aachen last year, and that event is still described as a fiasco.
  • We succeeded in getting public support, but not a binding treaty. To keep the world afloat, our experts calculate that the population growth must not exceed two percent and migration stop entirely. We managed to get some dedication for the two percent goal, but not for our demand that all countries dedicate 25 percent of its workforce to build a solid wall around the world.
  • Why is that?
  • The globalists are a powerful force, especially supported by the shipping industry and their propaganda about glorious adventures, exploration and exotic dancers. What destroyed it in the end was naturally the Chinese.
  • Who are the Chinese?
  • Some sort of foreigners, I believe. From the east.
  • But what is the real threat?
  • The threat is real.
  • But in what way?
  • First of all, if people start moving around and gather in the corners, they not only risk their own lives, but increase the risk of the entire world tripping over. That would be doomsday, it’s imminent and there is no more time to talk. We need to act to stop travel. In the short term, the eastern countries would suffer mostly from increased sea faring, as they are dependent on their trade routs on land. We would like to prohibit all ships larger than a raft.
  • Don’t you think that even the general public now will start to question your far reaching goals, when you admit to both lying and trying to hide facts?
  • The ordinary man does not understand complex issues. That’s why you have to use metafores like the hockey puck. This issue is bigger than any human could comprehend.
  • So it’s fundamentally a religious issue?
  • It’s been so all along.

Popularity: unranked [?]



Filed Under: Issues

About the Author: Einar Du Rietz is a journalist and communications consultant based in Europe. He has authored several environmental reports for the Electrolux Group and loads of blogs for the Center for the New Europe at CNE Environment.

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Comments are closed.