To:
The 22 distinguished faculty members of the MIT Program in
Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate who wrote a letter to President Trump
Date:
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
at 12:00 pm
From:
Zahir Ebrahim, Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
Email:
humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
Email:
zahir@alum.mit.edu
Dear
respected 22 MIT Professors and Scientists of Climate@MIT :
Hello.
You
collectively signed a most carefully worded letter
to President Donald Trump over a year and half ago (dated March 2,
2017) in which you stated that you did not share the views of your
colleague Dr. Lindzen who had previously written a letter
(dated February 23, 2017) to the President asking him to withdraw
from the UN climate convention, and that in your, and other
overwhelming majority of scientists' who have devoted their
professional lives to the careful study of climate science,
collective view, the risks to the Earth systems associated with
increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by
climate scientists to be real ones. [ Lindzen's followup letter
to the White House (dated March 09, 2017) ]
I
found your short letter particularly careful in its omissions. You
carefully chose not to make any observation on your beliefs on the
actual cause of this increase in CO2 levels, nor advocate any
solutions. In your letter you made it clear that your collective view
disagreed with your colleague's call to withdraw from United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Whilst you
explicitly raised the alarm on the potential dangers of high levels
of CO2, your omissions make it un obvious to me just from reading
your letter whether you also believe that the CO2 levels are
man-made, and must be regulated down by international programs such
as the Carbon Credit scheme, and the UN Agenda 21. In this letter I
presume that you do. I invite correction on any misimpressions of
which I am sure there may be a few. None are all knowing, including
yourselves.
Of
course, no sensible person, let alone a science professor at MIT,
will think not to first massively plant new trees and replenish
Rainforests and jungles on urgent war footings; not to first stop
cutting down trees for housing for the Western world that principally
uses timber for structures, and not to first stop clearing forests
for cattle-feed farming and agriculture, especially in the Amazon
basin and the Americas, that has pretty much drained the primary
cleansing sink of human generated CO2 in the delicately balanced
human-plant natural eco-system of earth.
Also,
no sensible person will think not to first cut down on the pollutants
created by heavy industries and multinational corporations; and not
to first stop discharging pollutants into rivers and streams in the
developing nations where regulations are not as strong as in the
developed nations, whereby profit-optimizing multinational
corporations headquartered in the West, easily get away with cost
cutting short cuts of simply dumping many pollutants outside their
factories untreated that they can't do in developed nations due to
stricter laws and their stricter oversight.
If
China is filling the air with industrial pollutants more than the
United States today, the bulk of the end products of that pollution
are still exported to the United States and Western countries. All
the iphones are made in China but the biggest market and beneficiary
is in America. The stock of the most valued company on earth, now
surpassing one trillion dollars, and headquartered in California,
USA, is traded on Wall Street USA. It goes up or down depending on
how many iphones will be sold.
So,
what sensible person will not think of first enforcing regulations at
the parent source commissioning that pollution in China, before the
pollution even gets manufactured downstream and is discharged into
the environment 7,000 miles away?
What
sensible person will not think that first all multinational
corporations manufacturing or harvesting in developing nations for
their lower labor costs and resource-richness, bear the cost of
discharging their environmental pollutants and waste byproducts as if
they were manufacturing in the advanced developed nations of the West
where they are headquartered, and pay for the cleanup cost for their
past sins?
After
all, it is the same earth's atmosphere whether it is over China,
Bangladesh, or the United States of America.
MIT
in its LEES Lab under the directorship of the late Professor James R.
Melcher, who was also my 6.013 teacher, had focused on research and
development of advanced technological devices that clean up
industrial effluents and air pollutants before these are discharged
into the oceans and atmospheres, like the electrostatic precipitator,
etc.
These
high technologies take investment on the part of multinational
corporations to develop and deploy even after these have left the
research labs years ago, and why should they do that when they are
not forced to, due to the weak regulations and special concessions
under which they usually operate in poor nations? The burden then has
to be carried by the common man in these impoverished nations who
must suffer that cost in all its human and national dimensions, while
the stock prices of the multinational corporations go up when their
profit margins are higher, and the developed nations rejoice in their
economic success. That success, of greed and primacy, creates a
self-fulfilling prophecy for creating more environmental pollution –
why alter the recipe for higher profit margins, and economic hegemony
which comes with it, when one is not forced to?
Therefore,
which sensible and moral human being concerned about the environment
would not address that most significant bit of the matter
first, by creating regulations for responsible manufacturing and
subjecting all multinational corporations to these standards
regardless of where they operate their industries, manufacturing
bases, and agricultural farms for global food production,
irrespective of whether manufacturing and work is subcontracted to
other local corporations or not, and irrespective of what local
incentives they might get from tin-pot governments and banana
republics who help in the rape and exploitation of their own
resource-rich and yet continually impoverished nations as surrogates
of the Economic Hit Men who craft these mega deals?
Which
sensible intellect will not first institute accountability for this
mega corruption and exploitation upon the multinational corporations
by the fiat of new regulatory laws that define standards for how
multinational corporations must operate anywhere in the world,
despite these corporations also being the backbone of the advanced
military-industrial complex of the West that lends the Global North
its supremacy and primacy over the Global South?
All
commonsense and goodness first principles for having a cleaner global
environment for all its peoples and future generations regardless of
any existential crisis today including global warming, global
cooling, climate change, or aliens landing.
But,
just as no sensible person would think of living in a police state
just because it makes the most stable system of governance and offers
the most safety from common criminals, no sensible person will also
think to put human beings in growth chains and to enslave mankind to
the agendas of the elites in a global police state just to get rid of
the high levels of CO2. [ See Footnote ]
Would
you agree with these general statements of commonsensical principles?
Who
in their right human mind will not agree, except the Übermensch
for whom mankind is mere cattle to be herded, culled, and harvested,
and therefore, this is only a rhetorical question.
I
wonder though, whether you, the distinguished climate focused
scientists and narrow-gauged super-specialists at MIT who have
devoted your professional lives to the careful study of climate
science, are simply unaware of the actual forces driving the
solution-spaces in the United Nations based on the alarmist attitude
of climate scientists that global warming is man-made?
Are
you scholars simply innocent of knowledge of the principal
underlying political motivations that is funding your science
globally?
These
are not classified state secrets.
If
you were indeed unaware, and truthfully believed in the nobility of
tooth-fairies and their great concern for humanity and the earth's
environment, so generously funding your climate science, and you only
now become aware of the true dimensions of the impact of your life's
work as a consequence of carefully reading this letter and the
attached document, what would you do?
These
are not rhetorical questions. These beg reflection and some soul
searching.
Would
you at least attempt to dig deeper into the matter I bring before you
at my ordinary lay person's level, to ensure that you understand it
at your own greater intellectual capacity such that if you still wish
to be a willing part of this political agenda, someday in the future,
you cannot, in good conscience, and on record, disclaim the famous
oops: “I did not know” or “I was misled by ...”,
or the famous mea culpa: “I was only following orders”? I
would like to have you on record now. You really can't think the
world is made up of only fools and useful idiots, or intellects that
are easily bought.
May
I take the liberty to remind you, and other scientists reading this
letter, of the fate of the Nazi philosopher at Nuremberg. He was
hanged. The German scientists who had willingly enabled the Nazi war
machine were of course more useful to keep alive than the Nazi
philosopher who embellished the Nazi theology of the superiority of
the German race, and were instead secretly squirreled over to the
United States in Operation Paperclip to reenlist their talents
and services for the war machine of the land of the free under new
identities.
No
moral grounds is the empirical reality of not just state power, but
also those brilliant intellectuals whose lives and livelihood depend
on the benevolence of the state. It is considered being shrewd and
pragmatic to cut any deal. The Nazi rocket scientists were perhaps
the most pragmatic scientists the world has ever seen.
Who
said this:
“Once
the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my
department”
It
is a shame that Donald Trump did not think of including their example
in The Art of Deal. As post President, he may yet do so in its
sequel as he is getting first hand experience of uber pragmatism in
the international arena. The power of the superstate to corrupt and
co-opt is not fairytale.
In
the case of United State of America, unlike in the former USSR and
Nazi state with their monolithic state control, the American
superpower state is reflected not just in the political corridors of
power that changes periodically like clockwork, but principally in
its vast, mostly privatized, but state supported via contracts and
grants, distributed, long-living
military-industrial-academe-thinktank-trusts complex.
MIT
is an integral and arguably a most important technological part of
that global infrastructure and much of its funding comes from it,
including the Pentagon, the NIH, and other federal bodies and
corporations depending on the priority of the state at any given
time.
So,
it is not unfair to assert that all who work at MIT work for the
military-industrial complex of the state in some capacity, by way
their salaries are paid and their research funded. They are funded in
their research only if they follow the values, policies, agendas and
priorities of the military-industrial complex of the state.
Scientists and researchers whose livelihood depends on grants, just
naturally know this by how to get their grants approved, and how to
get their papers published, and no one need come tell them what the
state wants, or strong-arm them with an order as in petty
dictatorships.
One
can easily tell the priority of the state by what is funded and what
isn't, what is published and what isn't, who or what is glorified and
who or what is marginalized. One “chooses”, voluntarily,
to be part of that privilege of being funded and rewarded when one
cares more dearly about career, opportunities for advancement, social
standing, accolades that follow, than take unpopular positions and go
against the grain when it is clearly career limiting. Having tenure
isn't propulsion for scientists dependent upon research grants to
advance in their profession.
Today,
opportunities for advancement in climate science is in finding
scientific justification for global warming aka climate change as
being man-made.
I
suspect that all such climate researchers are well-funded who make
that presupposition their axiom of research. The skeptics are left in
want of research grants. In other words, the science of global
warming is done, one way or another, and now they are hoping that
empirical reality will catch up to their synthetic science!
Who
said this:
“If
anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This
isn't being political, it is being selfish.”
Speak
of putting the cart before the horse!!
By
the chauvinist attitudes betrayed, it is easy to conclude that
establishment's climate scientists are hoping that the world would
buy the sheer brilliance of their climate science with their eyes
wide shut, because most normal people and governments are obviously
not climate research specialists, and the gods of climate research
proclaim that their unassailable gospel, which they also declare no
one else may comprehend since they are not climate specialists, must
still be accepted on faith in the expertise and anointment of the
chosen climate scientists.
I
have news for the new wannabe gods. That was the way of the Roman
Catholic Church in antiquity, and it took an outsider to drive that
nail through its front door.
Science
has no gods, no popes, no faith based axioms that cannot be
challenged and scrutinized repeatedly. Unlike religion, dissent is
part and parcel of science, not outside of it.
You
scientists have turned climate science into religion by asserting
god-like authority of the climate researchers upon a wholly empirical
matter, anointing yourselves as its only credible high priests
capable of understanding it.
Anyone
who dissents with your version of climate science is dismissed as not
being qualified to disagree with it. Just take a look at the
annotations by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Dr. Lindzen's
letter.
Take
religion and self-interest out of science.
This
means, you don't have exclusivity to thought, knowledge,
understanding, wisdom, reasoning skills, and you should stop
pretending that you do. It makes a poor impression of your field.
Your
blanket rejection of all dissent with your synthetic construction by
men of science, including the 300 who signed Dr. Lindzen's petition
(I have not seen their names), and more than a 1000 international
scientists listed in the U. S. Senate Minority Report 2008 to 2010 (I
have read each one's statement), and your claim to validity by appeal
to “almost universally agreed” among your own well-funded
coterie of insider climate scientists, is not just pathetically
arrogant, but also specious.
When
the system auto-rejects those who don't a priori accept its core
axiom, then those left behind are self-selecting, and automatically
agree among themselves.
What
is the intellectual worth of such incestuously self-reinforced
“universal agreement” in science?
Let
alone it commanding the political power to influence the formulation
of a draconian global policy prescription based upon such a
meaningless “consensus” among a tiny group of overly
specialized climate researchers which will directly impact all seven
billion human beings on earth!
I
might as well be visiting Alice in Wonderland for the absurdities
that do not seem to bother the participants at the tea party.
I
am troubled by this absurd chauvinist attitude. Primacy and humility
obviously can't live together.
Apart
from the topic at hand, MIT professors are not just professional
scientists, but also professional teachers in the world's most
prestigious institution. Kids die to come learn here. And MIT enrolls
some of the brightest starry-eyed teenage applicants from the world
over. Many of them go on to become leading scientists and scholars.
And what kind of future intellectuals shall they make when their own
teachers are cheerleaders for conformist thought, prostituting
science in the service of a political theology --- and perhaps not
realizing that that's what is being taught by the attitudes displayed
in one's own profession? No wonder there isn't a Galileo born to
funded science.
Who
said this:
“In
questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual”
Today,
the major thesis of establishmentarian climate scientists who have
devoted their professional lives to the careful study of climate
science, but evidently under the prevailing political axiom that
brings funds to their research, is that the crisis is man-made global
warming; tomorrow, the thesis may become man-made global cooling; and
the day after, something else man-made catastrophe; unless of course
the crisis creation is alien invasion or heavenly collision.
And
establishment scientists will create the science fantasy to support
all of these. Even good science is funded by political goals, just as
militarization is funded for political goals. So what of the pseudo
science that is to directly serve a political agenda? Pick the
data and the computer models to support the political theory du jour.
Who can ever know what's in it?
And
the world would surely have not known what's in the kitchen sink of
climate science without the revelations contained in the East Anglia
Emails. I have had the opportunity to read some of them. These candid
conversations among the inner circle of climate scientists is
disturbing to say the least. To a sharp mind, it is obvious that they
are creating a phony science and hoping the reality will catch up
with their construction, or, that no one will notice, or ask too many
perceptive questions about the inside workings of their models and
data. Someone did. And the rest of us did too --- and we don't have
to be particularly superior climate scientists to distinguish snake
oil when that's what it is.
My
analysis in the attached document is not altered by which crisis and
which science is the currency du jour as the purpose of, and solution
for, all these crises is singular and the same:
To
motivate the transition of independent nation-states to Global
Governance; to a one-world government under the central control of an
elite class who shall decide what's good for the rest of mankind.
You
must know that this feudal architecture was forcibly overthrown at
the revolutionary founding of the Untied States of America. It
appears that a new global revolutionary battle is required to
overthrow it once again before it succeeds in constructing its global
empire in complete fait accompli.
As
principal stewards of global thought from the premiere academy of
science and technology in the world, and my alma mater, I invite you
to read and reflect upon the attached document. I hope that you will
correct my misimpressions so that others may also benefit from your
honest intellect and not be misled by an enthusiastic ordinary layman
only able to do basic arithmetic correctly.
Who
said this:
“Freedom
is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is
granted, all else follows.”
Remarkably,
I can do simple addition rather well, and also proclaim the result
without being beholden to a license from authority figures to grant
me that freedom to speak.
To
seek a license before one can find the noble courage to do
commonsense arithmetic correctly and speak of the unspeakable result,
is to succumb to moral cowardice. The labors of Socrates (whether
legend or reality is irrelevant) showed the world the lengths and
distances one must go to uphold intellectual integrity if one is a
real seeker of truth about reality. And that's what scientists are,
or supposed to be, and which is why most of us become scientists in
the first place. But along the way reality meets morality and guess
which one takes the back-seat?
Interestingly
though, I did not learn this basic arithmetic skill at MIT, nor the
courage to proclaim it freely, despite learning higher mathematics
and electrical engineering among many other things.
Chances
are, based on sheer statistics of the number of learned people in the
United States of America with advanced post graduate degrees from its
more than 2000 colleges and universities still unable to call a spade
a spade, you may also be the victim of the same absurdity: being able
to solve complex differential equations easily, but not able to
correctly add two plus two to make four, and speak it out loud.
Our
higher education systems of course, and our social values, leave much
room for improvement, especially in the use of basic commonsense.
Exercising commonsense under some circumstances takes for more
courage than is evidently common, which is why it takes uncommon
courage to add two plus two to make four and to speak the
unspeakable. It is far easier to say five. And even easier to think
five! There is no cognitive dissonance in that case.
Virtually
all learned scientists, scholars and experts in the Third Reich had
also become victim to the same absurdity, whereby, its best minds
enabling the Nazi technological war machinery with highest levels of
science and industry in the world at the time, united we stood with
Mein Führer and his grotesque geostrategic imperatives for
Lebensraum without a qualm. This was only two to three
generation of scientists ago.
Indeed,
no civilization can escape this failing of conforming to the diktats
and wisdoms of their ruling power and authority figures, which, in
our modernity, is not always exercised at the point of the bayonet as
it was in the Third Reich, or the former USSR, or in room 101.
Unless
the best minds in society rise to challenge their own banality of
evil first, they cannot break through the myriad forces that
ensure obedience and silence on truth. Brilliant intellectuals just
as easily become obedient slaves to this system United We Stand
as the rest of the ordinary public who would do anything to pursue
their “American Dreams” including sell their conscience,
but under carefully managed illusions. This is just a statement of
empirical fact, and quite self-evident. When intellectuals seek, and
are dependent upon, “universal agreement” to sell their
“wares”, they dare not stand alone lest they be forced to
drink the hemlock like Socrates, and recant like Galileo.
Conformist
thoughts lead to conformist behavior, and vice versa. It does not
take a great deal of intelligence to see that this obedience to
authority leads to corrupting all paradigms of objectivity, of
science and scholarship, which demand non conformity and independence
of thought as first principles in order to break the mold of
entrenched dogmas. Be it in hard sciences, or in social sciences,
art, literature, humanities, and policy-making. Under its dominance,
both Socrates and Galileo were made to suffer the courage of their
convictions as we all learn in elementary school.
That's
generally too hefty a price to pay for most normal people. Especially
for those whose bread and butter begins and ends in prestigious
establishment universities that form an integral part of its vast
military-industrial-academe complex.
As
is obvious, if you want to do science, you must play ball with those
who control your purse strings, or your funding will dry up. Without
funding, your research and your publications and your promotions will
dry up as well. That's how the academic system works in the United
States (and elsewhere in the industrialized West) and we all know it.
Surely
no MIT scientist can believe that they are uniquely insusceptible to
these universal forces?
So,
I must ask once again, in all the humility that is the station of a
common man harboring no illusions of the Übermensch and
their imperatives, but still must ask due to its import in discerning
motivation and intent which are never divorced from one's work:
Are
climate scientists, especially those at MIT including yourselves,
genuinely innocent of knowledge of the unhidden forces driving
transformation towards Global Governance from the elite top? A global
empire that has been the dream of all conquerors throughout world
history? And that all of you are equally complicit in providing one
of the many enabling pretexts?
The
spirit of primacy which fuels every sociopath's dream of ruling the
world remains quite untamed.
If
anything, our Technetronic Era has made it not just possible,
but quite practicable, for a handful of people to control the world
and rule all humanity. This was already much anticipated, even
speciously dignified, and also planned. Surely you are more than
literate in Zbigniew Brzezinski's clairvoyant classic Between Two
Ages: The Role of America in the Technetronic Era; Bertrand
Russell's equally seminal prognostications of the impending future in
The Impact of Science on Society; H. G. Wells' similar
self-serving predictions in The New World Order; Carroll
Quigley's troublesome confirmation of the secretive role of the
handful of financial super-elites behind the pyramid of political
power in the West and the affairs of the world, in Tragedy &
Hope: A History of the World in Our Time; etc. The bibliography
is extensive and blueprints modernity rather accurately.
The
instinct for primacy remains unabated. At the top of its hierarchy in
our Technetronic modernity is the instinct for intellectual
primacy from which supremacy and hegemony follow. Science and
scientists are part of that primacy. That's just self-evident.
As
someone once said, we may have descended from the tree top, but we
have yet to lose our tail. This appendage is clearly visible in all
the technological barbarism the super militarized state regularly
visits upon the Üntermenschen without its freedom loving
free peoples and brilliant scientists batting an eye.
Have
you been to a zoo lately? Just watch the primates for a while on your
next visit with your children and grandkids --- others remain quite
unconcerned as the alpha male beats up his closest reach. Our reach
is much greater, but little else appears to have changed.
As
I stated in my recent letter to one of the more aggressive PR
spokesperson for Climate Science, who is also the uber skeptic of all
normal skeptics of global warming mantra, and I reproduce that
thought here because of its relevance to all scientists everywhere:
“As
much as uber scientists might like to believe that they are Mr.
Spock, science for us earthians is not divorced from social science,
specifically political science, social psychology, and psychology,
since those doing science are social beings, given to all the same
failings and limitations of human beings. This include primacy,
co-option, greed, the banality of evil, will to power, and the list
is long.”
I
am sure that as learned scholars you are more than familiar with all
these basic human failings which apply to all human beings, and also
with the human potential to rise above our limitations.
But,
as we all know, it does take working against the force of gravity to
rise even a step beyond ground level. To escape its clutches
altogether takes the exercise of a counter-force greater than gravity
to be able to reach escape velocity! And risk going up in smoke on
the launch pad, to boot.
I
would be pollyannaish if I believed that MIT scientists are immune to
such pressures to conform to the political and professional wisdom du
jour, and that they are all rocket propulsion specialists.
But
I am also certain that good human beings everywhere daily resist
making any kind of Faustian bargain. MIT scientists included.
How
successfully? Let's see.
The
Source URL for what follows is:
I
look forward to your comments on my analysis and precautionary
advocacy in that report and in this letter. I tend to agree with your
own advocacy in your letter to President Trump and I do not suggest
that the United States unilaterally withdraw from international
climate conventions as did Dr. Lindzen in his letter. I believe these
UN conventions can serve a useful purpose, though not the one the
political elites have in mind. But I also agree with what is
commonsensical in Dr. Lindzen's more explicit letter, irrespective of
whether or not he may be funded by the lobby on fossil fuels as is
often alleged to dismiss all his rational and pertinent critique of
climate science. I am more scrutinizing and discerning in all matters
and do not foolishly throw the baby out with the bath water.
Instead,
I advocate that climate scientists transcend their typical a-moral
and “pragmatic” attitude towards science. This will
automatically compel their awakened consciences (I presume they have
one which lies suppressed) to stop deceiving themselves. This in turn
will lead them to use their participation in international bodies to
speak the whole truth, not half-truth, not establishment's truth, not
the IPCC's truth, and not the truth convenient to advancement of
careers and social standing.
I
advocate conscionable climate scientists offer commonsensical
alternatives to nations other than what's pitched by the political
elites from their tower of babel.
If
you distinguished scholars of climate science simply pursued the
commonsense principles expressed in this letter, conveyed this
commonsense to the president of the United States, and to the
convention participants, you could more effectively forge a real
consensus internationally to commence a less draconian solution-space
based on these principles, and defer making decision on the sky is
falling global catastrophe of global warming destroying earth,
until climate change due to natural causes is specifically ruled out
by empiricism (and not by synthetic computer modeling).
If
nature is indeed the culprit today as it has empirically always been
in the past, then there is little that man can do about it. There is
certainly no political mileage to be derived from that assessment. In
fact, it would derail the political agenda of man-made global warming
altogether. It may yet be replaced by man-made global cooling before
too long.
Some
establishment scientists will again rush to define new environmental
markers to suggest that the first cause is again man-made; new threat
scenarios will be outlined, and principally the same solution-spaces
outlined in Agenda 21, or its newer version, pitched to put mankind
in growth chains.
I
dare to think that only conscionable scientists who are not
“pragmatic” like the Nazi scientists, shall be the
effective moral impediments to all such scams. Beyond that, only a
global rebellion.
May
I conclude this long letter from my voice of conscience by humbly
suggesting that MIT's talented and distinguished climate scientists
step out of their ivory shells as the narrow-gauge super-specialists
that you are, and dedicate some time to acquiring the wherewithal of
all the forces driving the agendas at the UN and its conventions. If
you knowingly wish to be part of that political game, and knowingly
wish to become enablers of the draconian agendas of world government
as its petty technicians, that's your cross to bear. And mankind's
misfortune. You better choose your Faustian bargain with great
forethought because your progeny shall sail in the same boat. None of
us, including yourselves I am sure, wish to live in a global police
state anymore than we wish to live in any police state. However, Nazi
scientists were quite happy living in their police state. So were
Soviet scientists. But we are already spoiled. And we might indeed be
the generations caught between two ages. Those who are born in a
police-state after this transition age, will have no angst.
But
I dearly hope that many of you, nay all of you, and all those
scientists who might read this letter, wish to make this a better
world in the true sense of the word, for all its ordinary peoples.
Benevolent science and technology research programs that MIT Spectrum
continually brings to my electronic door every now and then, and
MIT's altruistic science and technology open education programs that
bring life-long learning to far away lands, alone cannot bestow
benevolence, nor un militarize a highly militarized world hurtling at
breakneck speed towards dystopia. Making sense of an apparently
senseless world takes seeing all the forces that shape events, not
just those near to you.
Who
said this:
“Aspire
to be like Mt. Fuji, with such a broad and
solid foundation that
the strongest earthquake
cannot move you, and so tall that the
greatest
enterprises of common men seem insignificant
from
your lofty perspective. With your mind as high
as Mt. Fuji you
can see all things clearly.
And you can see all the forces that
shape events;
not just the things happening near to you.”
As
Socrates might have pleaded before the elites of his time in his own
defence against their charge of corrupting the youths of Athens and
disrespecting their gods with his non-conformist intellect:
‘Agree
with me if I seem to you to speak the truth; or, if not, withstand me
might and main that I may not deceive you as well as myself in my
desire, and like the bee leave my sting in you before I die. And now
let us proceed.’ (from classicist Edith Hamilton)
Thank
you.
Best
regards,
Zahir
Ebrahim
[
Extraneous Clarification Note Oct. 31, 2018: See attached document
to observe that this matter of high levels of their
environmental degradation marker CO2, is itself highly contested by
non establishment scientists. Here, I am prima facie accepting
establishment scientists on their own reported principal axiom
driving their climate science, that CO2 levels are unbearably high.
The logic of this letter does not depend upon it being true or false,
only that it be falsifiable.
High
levels of environmental pollution itself is a self-evident fact,
visible to everyone. To agree or disagree on axioms and
presuppositions that are intended to scientifically understand its
make-up, and to make differing observations based on the starting
point, is itself an integral part of science whose falsifiability,
and not religiosity, is what incrementally advances the overall
understanding of nature forward.
Yesterday,
upon receiving my letter, Dr. Lindzen generously sent me the PDF of
his second letter to the White House dated March 07, 2017, as
response to my letter, in which he had explained in more detail to
the President of the United States, why his petition signed by
approximately 330 scientists, called for withdrawal from UNFCCC of
all governments, and not just the United States.
Dr.
Lindzen pointed out in his letter that UNFCCC was in fact created 25
years ago to “find support for dangers from increasing
carbon dioxide.” Dr. Lindzen continued: “While
this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field,
the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections.”
In
plainer words, paraphrasing without syntactic sugaring, the purpose
of UNFCCC was to find scientific justification for high levels of CO2
causing climate change attributed to man. See Report from Iron
Mountain in the attached document for the idea of climate change
presenting a useful political crisis, being floated decades earlier,
in the early 1960s.
I
now have to agree with Dr. Lindzen that all governments ought to
withdraw from this farcical UN convention if that is the
presupposition of the convention and its raison d'être.
However, until such time that governments do withdraw, my advocacy
outlined in my letter is based on shrewdly using the Jujitsu
principle to turn the tables on one's opponents. Using their own
strengths and power to mold public opinion, disseminate the whole
truth of the matter from the same UN conventions. I am not privy to
the mechanisms of these UN conventions to opine further beyond
expressing this general theme from the pragmatic art of war. For,
this is indeed just that, a war of intellectual primacy, in which one
side is much weaker than the other, despite visibly being on a higher
plane of scientific integrity.
Furthermore,
my approach to technical disagreements is that these are an integral
part of science --- so do science; falsify others' axioms, methods,
models, data, observations and predictions if yours are different.
This is exactly what the dissenting scientists appear to be doing.
While the establishment scientists appear to be resisting doing
science in favor of religion, by their insisting upon their specious
consensus and special anointment as their principal epistemology.
As
a common man directly impacted by the current instantiation of
climate science, in this letter I have mainly questioned the insanity
of instrumenting a global policy based upon an incomplete and
incoherent picture of nature that reeks of political theology more
than science.
For
MIT climate scientists, of all peoples, becoming part of a political
ideology with respectability of science stamped all over their
credentials, is a disgrace to science whose only primacy over the
dogmas of religion is that it is objective and not ideological. It
reeks of the time when eugenics was scientifically couched to
formulate immigration policy in the United States at the turn of the
twentieth century, to keep out the untermensch and only admit
the preferred races and peoples.
Eugenics
science remained in vogue as a respectable pursuit throughout the
early decades of the twentieth century. Even philosophers were in on
it to cull the “useless eaters” who they stated never
contributed to civilization and were a burden upon the productive
white races for their high birth rates. See Bertrand Russell's
misanthropic arguments for birth control of the untermensch
races in The Impact of Science on Society, so that the
preferred races could procreate to their heart's desire.
It
was Adolf Hitler who gave eugenics a bad name with his concentration
camps. But the pseudo science did not die away. It was simply reborn
as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), for a more benign
sounding public relations approach to eugenics. The agenda is the
same. See the declassified United States National Security Strategy
Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) dated 1974, drafted by then Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, and signed off by president Gerald Ford as
NSDM 312 in 1975. Who lives and who dies is again decided by race and
usefulness to the advanced white civilizations of the world, but
syntactically sugared to map to the Least Developed Countries (LDC)
with significant over populations. High growth rates in the 13 LDC
listed is presented as threat to the national security of the United
States of America (and its Western allies obviously). The racial
eugenics bibliography is extensive, the dominant role played by
scientists and scholars harboring a political ideology, not
particularly being a secret.
It
raises the dilemma of whether there should be statutory laws to
police the corruption of science by scientists in the service of a
political agenda. If there is any respectable place for debating
this, it is at MIT, especially with climate science being given so
much importance by its own administration as noted by Dr. Lindzen in
his second letter to the White House. Be part of America's
military-industrial-academe complex, as that is the lifeline and
raison d'être of MIT, but not by supporting the corruption of
science and mathematics, by creating pseudo versions of these, in the
service of misanthropic ideology at least on its own academic
territory.
Climate
science is not the first to put pseudo science in the service of
primacy. See John Perkins' Confessions of Economic Hit Man,
for his revelations on how he employed an Indian mathematician
working at MIT in the 1970s, to construct advanced pseudo mathematics
based on complicated and indecipherable Markov model gooblydocks
which no one could comprehend (just like today climate science would
prefer it), and got it published in peer reviewed mathematics
journals (just like today climate scientists follow that template).
Perkins and this MIT mathematician took the academic respectability
so gained from this contrived publishing of junk math, to third world
countries to encourage them to take on mega loans for mega
construction projects under the false projections from the mumbo
jumbo of this pseudo math, that return growth rates from building
bigger than necessary, would be in double digits and sufficient to
pay back the monstrous loans.
The
foolish and often mercenary leadership of these nations bought into
it by various means of persuasion (just as foolish nations today are
buying into the wares of climate scientists with copious help from
NGOs and the Mighty Wurlitzer's global propaganda machinery). The
projected high growth rates of course were fictitious and based on
hypothetical models that could never transpire in reality; sounds
familiar? These resource-rich but impoverished nations all ended up
in the World Bank's debt enslavement trap, with the WB-IMF tag team
forcing these nations to restructure and privatize their economies
and their public commons (primacy through neoliberalism) in order to
be given additional loans to pay just the interests on the mega
loans. Yes indeed. See Chapter 17 of the Economic Hit Man,
titled Panama Canal Negotiations and Graham Greene, or see the
pertinent excerpts in reference [2] of the attached document.
History
is evidently repeating with Climate @ MIT. There may be other cases
as well in other departments of MIT serving similar interests of
primacy with the wonderful magic of numbers and computers.
It
is high time that, at least in this day and age, MIT forged its own
institutional policy and mechanisms for policing this subversion of
ethics, science, and academic integrity – if they care for any
of these matters as they proclaim, and daily indoctrinate their
impressionable young minds to believe.
Responsible
Citizenship begins right here, which also happens to be a hot button
for the President of MIT, Dr. Rafael Reif, these days. In the lofty
exercise of that virtue, it will require far more courage to take a
principled stand on this pernicious corruption of science and ethics
in the pursuit of misanthropic ideologies as its President, than it
has taken me to write this letter as its ordinary alum. MIT
administration and MIT Corporation will have to tradeoff
institutional integrity against the establishment's funds so
generously available to anyone willing to compromise themselves.
That
principled stance of saying “No” to the institutional
banality of evil, will teach the value of Responsible
Citizenship at MIT to its individual members more than any platitude
scribed on sacred parchment ever can. ]
Emailed
and published Tuesday, October 30, 2018
at 12:00 pm
5624 23932
Extraneous Clarification Note added as Footnote October 31, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Link to Lindzen's followup letter to the White House added December 13, 2018
Letter
to Climate@MIT : Is Climate Science Religion or Science? Zahir
Ebrahim 15
/ 15