The False Politics and Faulty Science of Climate Change

The Failing Politics and False Science of 'Climate Change' - System Change, Not Climate Change

8th December 2014

By Ethan Indigo Smith and Andy Whiteley

Contributing Writer and Co-Founder of Wake Up World

The carbon emissions=climate changedebate is a redundant distraction to the broader actuality of humanity’s blatantly destructive environmental practicesThe question at the core of the climate discussion is not if the planet is warming, or whether carbon levels are to blame, the question is whether our current way of life on planet earth is sustainable. Yet this supposedly scientific debate has deteriorated to narrow political rhetoric that keeps us debating the details, not the central issue.

Is human activity negatively affecting our planet’s health, and risking humanity’s future? – Yes. Are our current practices sustainable? – No. Are carbon emissions the single cause that is altering our environment such that it is causing global temperatures to  increase? – There is little scientific consensus, but it is secondary to the broader matter at hand.

Whatever the temperature may be, or how wild the storms, it is only a symptom of our collective disconnection from Mother Nature. Living a lifestyle that is incompatible with nature, we have allowed our atmosphere, water, soil and food supplies all to be ruined by ever-increasing environmental, industrial and agricultural poisons. And now, with unprecedented rates of disease affecting ‘developed’ nations, the irrefutable reality of our increasingly toxic lives — changing climate or not — is reason enough to end the narrow carbon debate and initiate the many systemic reforms we know are now essential to our survival.

The science of climate change, just like modern medicine, focusses aimlessly on the understanding the symptoms, but never the cause. Meanwhile, it seems government officials are deliberately dragging their feet on systemic reforms, gambling with our future to further an increasingly blatant commercial agenda.

The Narrow Climate Change Debate

Let’s get real here. The debate of ‘climate change’ has not been a real debate for many years now. It was and remains a political distraction, not a scientific discourse. The complex question of our changing ecosystem has been reduced in our collective language  (through media and political manipulation) to a simplistic notion of “carbon emissions”, ignoring the countless other factors that are contributing to the deterioration of our ecosystems.

And so, while our focus remains only on carbon, and our individual (not industrial) contributions to carbon emissions, no action is being taken to reform the dirty industrial systems we already know are yesterday’s news. Clearly, this unending political debate is staged in favor of those who profit the most, drawing focus away from the broader environmental issues – and solutions – and impeding necessary reform.

Our society is dependent on energy from operations plagued by gas leaks, oil spills and radioactive meltdowns; our food supply is increasingly tainted by “FDA Approved” agricultural poisons, our atmosphere is being sprayed with toxic cocktails in a military attempt to control the planet’s weather, while our carbon-absorbing oceans and forests are being further decimated by short-sighted commercial practice (as well as toxic “ocean fertilization” practices) with each passing day. And what of the effects of radioactive pollution? EMF radiation? Airborne toxins from petrol technologies? Large scale land-clearing? Agricultural poisons in air rain and soil? Nuclear radiation not only from the industry’s history of meltdowns but its unmanaged radioactive waste? Mounting plastic pollution?

Only a politician or a corporate spin-doctor would argue the virtues of destructive technologies like oil, poison-dependent GMO agriculture and nuclear energy/weapons experimentation, while energy systems already exist that can serve us today and for seven generations to come.

Conveniently, the scientists advocating the official carbon rhetoric have ignored countless significant (but politically inconvenient) influences on our natural environment in order to reach a position of advocacy, making the worst mistake a scientist can make — omitting to consider information that is already well known. Such information includes:

  • atmospheric heavy metal and chemical spraying as part of geo-engineering programs
  • ever-increasing levels of airborne pollution and nuclear radiation in our air and sea
  • mounting waste from ‘functioning’ nuclear facilities. (So far nuclear science hasn’t figured out how to eliminate  radioactive waste material, only how to  accumulate and store it for future generations to worry about)
  • compromised soil and water caused by increased “fracking” (read: “blowing shit up underground”) in local communities
  • 3 ½ years worth of radioactive waste pouring from the failed Fukushima Daiichi facility into the oceans that are home to the plants that  supply two thirds of our atmosphere’s oxygen
  • the effect on other plant and animal life, including the collapsing bee colonies that pollenate food bearing,  oxygen-creating plant life on land, and the knock on effects of their ill-health and decline on a deeply inter-connected ecosystem
  • unsustainable agricultural processes, including but not limited to the heavily instituted use of the toxic pesticides (such as the RoundUp/glyphosate  poison that is central to GMO crop production) that have been linked not only to the collapse of global bee colonies but also unprecedented rates of human illness
  • ever-diminishing rain forests and increased land-clearing.
  • the cumulative interaction of these factors in our ecosystem, and our bodies, particularly when airborne pollutants commonly associated with geoengineering and nuclear programs (heavy metals) interact with electromagnetic radiation and HAARP.

Ignoring not one by all of these factors, the scientists propping up the climate=carbon debate compound the first mistake by making the second worst mistake a scientist could make: omitting the potential of other factors, known or unknown, that may influence their considerations, results and predictions of environmental changes.

Is carbon really our biggest concern? Or is it our least tangible environmental concern — the perfect political diversion from any discussion of tangible systemic reform, an easy way to convince the public to take shorter showers and turn off the lights, when personal (as opposed to industrial) consumption is responsible for no more than 3%of all CO2 emissions?

When we view out current environmental situation with our eyes wide open, suggesting that putting a price and/or “cap” on carbon emissions is the mechanism that will save us from ourselves is ridiculous.

But it sure does make people feel better.

In reality, true environmentalism is not about making our rapacious and destructive industrialism a little more sustainable, but transforming humankind’s relationship with Earth and the life she sustains — for us to take our true place within, and as part of, the living biosphere. And that, my friends, will take more than energy saving lightbulbs.

Reality Check

Humanity is living an unsustainable life here on earth. Our days like today are numbered. There are countless factors that are putting our natural ecosystem under pressure, yet with public debate carefully steered by corporate-government and their media, the entire discourse of our environmental future has been co-opted; reduced to a dangerous theatre of popularist politics that is rooted in  polarized, dualistic thinking — the opposition of two competing ideas, two parties, left and right, neither one a complete solution…

Is it so? Is it not so?
Is it good? Is it bad?

What the so-called leaders and thinkers of the day fail to understand is that the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Or elsewhere entirely. For information or situations to be comprehensively analyzed, questions must be posed in four ways, not two.

Is it so? Is it not so? Is it both? Is it neither?
Is it good? Is it bad? Is it both? Is it neither?

When this expanded form of thinking is applied to the ‘climate change’ debate, the comprehensive question must therefore be:

Are carbon emissions influencing the earth and the atmosphere? Is the earth warming as part of a natural solar-system cycle? Is it both? Or is it neither?

And frankly, who the hell cares?

If you are caught up by the government-led carbon emissions/global warming debate, you have been led down a vortex of butterfly effects and chaos theories that only hold water if you ignore the obvious smog, soot and crap in your air, water, food and hair.

Drivel and Double-Think

The unscientific global warming debate continues to derail any real progress toward sustainable practice, with advocates of such destructive technologies working overtime to convince the public that poison is progress. Such confounding double-think creates the perfect scenario for those in power, who profit from our collective poisoning.

The point of the environment debate is to consider the many factors and effects of our polluting infrastructures, which we already know are unsustainable. The pollution is undeniable, and is the result of destructive yet highly profitable energy and resource industries, and the practices (both covert and overt) of the governments that protect them. While the ailing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility continues to spew radioactive toxins in the our oceans over 4 years after the first meltdown, Miami’s Turkey Point nuclear facility is teetering on the brink of disaster. And yet, barely a peep is heard from mainstream news.

To learn more, please read: 3 Years After Fukushima: Behind the Skewed Data and Vested Interests.

Says Maureen E. Raymo, a research professorat the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University: “It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster”.

Even scientist and self-proclaimed environmentalist James Lovelock, who originated the Gaia Hypothesis, is himself locked in this ridiculous global warming debate. In 1972, Lovelock defined Gaia as “a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet”. Yet despite this self-evident perspective, Lovelock recently stated:

“So-called ‘sustainable development’ is meaningless drivel. We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price… (windmills) are ugly and useless.”

This is some twisted scientific perspective when one considers the ongoing failures of our existing, ecosystem-altering industries!

Today, Lovelock is an advocate of the nuclear power generation experiment and the expanded use of natural gas. One can only wonder what coercion or enticement might have brought on such a dramatic, scientifically unfounded about-face.

Sleepwalking to Extinction

Whole regions have been made uninhabitable via the status quo of the petrolithic era and nuclear era, and the delicate balance of the whole planet’s ecosystem has been degraded by these operations. There is no question that today’s oligarchical globalization are unsustainable, and beyond that totally destructive today – like repeatedly crapping in one’s own bed. And while the powerbrokers of globalization continue to exert influence over supposedly independent media and sovereign governments, the debate of global warming remains little but unscientific distraction from any real solutions. And recent history has proven this to be a fact.

Global pollution and the environmental destruction of the earth is obvious, apparent and affronting. The oligarchical status quo of globalization and institutionalization has resulted in pollutants and toxins which permeate the oceans once thought to be limitless, and pierced the atmosphere.

Do the ice caps have to melt before this narrow carbon-obsessed global warming debate might turn for a moment toward actually doing something positive about our fouled air, water, land and food?

What is already scientifically known about global environmental destruction is enough for any reasonable person to support drastic change — in order to prevent drastic change.Undeniably, this change must start with the immediate reformation of institutions, particularly production and energy industries that profit while simultaneously working to suppress the development of genuinely sustainable energy technologies. Individuals, like you and me, who are already burdened with bioaccumulative toxins of all sorts from these contaminating practices, should not be the only ones to bear the hardship of such change. Such burden should be placed squarely on the institutions that are the source of  the problem, profit from the problem, and accordingly, wield their political influence to prolong the problem.

Time For Climate Revolution

Politics is about nuanced views. At one time it was commonly held in scientific circles that industrial byproducts such as nuclear and fossil fuels were largely responsible for the emerging ecological imbalance on planet earth. But that nuance has come and gone from political discussion, and the rhetoric manipulated so as to  falsely deflect responsibility for our current woes back onto a disempowered public.

Michael Klare is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, and the author of numerous books on the politics of energy, including Resource Wars, Blood and Oil and The Race for What’s Left. According to Klare:

“Few governments are as yet prepared to launch the sorts of efforts that might even begin to effectively address the peril of climate change, they will increasingly be seen as obstacles to essential action and so as entities that need to be removed. In short, climate rebellion.”

But it goes beyond governments not “being prepared”. Rather, it appears the United States Government is actively discouraging any environmental policy that may be detrimental to existing commercial industry.

According to a report by Nitin Sethi from, leaked US State Department internal documents show that U.S. senior State Department officials advised negotiators at the 2013 Climate Change Conference in Warsaw to essentially do nothing — specifically advising officials to “delay emission cut commitments and not to agree on any time line for funds” and providing instructions on “how the diplomats should posture publicly to help the delegation” achieve that goal. Meanwhile, President Obama and Secretary Kerry claim to treat our current environmental crisis as a “high priority”.

“In an internal briefing paper prepared for its diplomats across the world ahead of the Warsaw climate negotiations, which The Hindu has accessed, the U.S. has opposed the setting up of a separate process on ‘loss and damage’, pushed primarily for the role of private investments and finance in providing the promised money to the poor countries to adapt to climate change and have a 2015 climate agreement where no country is forced to take higher emission reduction pledges than the ones they initially volunteer. It also informed its diplomats to keep pushing the line with other countries that the U.S. was doing enough domestically on the climate change front and these were priorities for President Barack Obama and John Kerry.” ~ Nitin Sethi

In the very accurate words of writer, filmmaker, and activist Dennis Trainor, Jr. (who was critically acclaimed for his documentary on the Occupy movement, American Autumn):

“The Giant Pink Elephant in the room is that our world leaders can’t seem to deal with the reality of climate change because it is not profitable in short term profits for the global elite and the bottom line of transnational corporations.”

It is time to get real. These power-brokers are playing political games with our planet. They aren’t going to correct their own corrupted priorities, and realistically, we don’t have time to wait.

Human over-consumption of the Earth cannot continue without dire physical and spiritual consequences. We cannot consider ourselves the peak of evolution on earth while also being responsible for its devastation. We cannot breathe, eat or drink political rhetoric. Nor can our future generations. It time we start thinking outside the narrow confines of the political convention and formality that led us here. What we need is an environmental revolution. Our future on earth now depends on it.

“… at this pivotal moment in global history, there is little time to pick apart the ‘manners’… of a species on the verge of self-extinction. The wrongness of investing our money in companies that are wrecking the planet — polluting, contaminating and rendering non-consumable the water, food and air on which our survival depends — is self evident. It is the very definition of insanity.

“Now, perhaps more than at any time in global history, we dare not marginalize our own for asking the questions we are afraid to ask… How will we create a future worth living if even those who rally for peace lack the capacity to appreciate those who ‘think with their hearts?’… Who will be left to point out the irony of a culture that rhetorically endorses – even teaches its children – concepts of “conflict resolution” and “conservation,” while simultaneously waging war and consumerism on the rest of the planet?…

“It is those brave ones, those courageous enough to question the basic tenets of this outdated economic model, who will save us – if we are to be saved.” ~ Sandy Leon Vest, ‘Operation Infinite Love’.

Mankind’s environmentally and spiritually destructive energy, food and technology systems are incompatible with our natural environment – and the laws of nature. What we have come to accept as “standard” industrial practice today negatively alters our whole planet with countless pollutants, both seen and unseen. And as a result, the domination of polluting industries combined with covert government weather modification programs has created a new environment; one that is increasingly volatile and inhospitable to us, and which will ultimately become uninhabitable to us — unless we make major systemic change, and fast.

Undoubtedly, government fascists and the ill-informed will continue to debate the symptoms, tout the ingenuity of human creations, and deny the feasibility of alternative systems of energy delivery or simpler ways of living that are not based on industrial-scale mass-consumption. But the fact is, our polluting industries are what is unfeasible — a direct reflection of our collective disconnection from Mother Earth.

As Richard Smith wrote in Vancouver based anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters: “Today, we are very much living in one of those pivotal world-changing moments in history. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this is the most critical moment in human history.” And he’s right.

“The present convergence of crises – in money, energy, education, health, water, soil, climate, politics, the environment, and more – is a birth crisis, expelling us from the old world into a new.” ~ Charles Eisenstein, Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition.

The narrow, pseudo-scientific global warming debate is over – as is the need for any further debate on our destructive environmental practices. What is needed is systemic  change. Now. It is the only way humanity has any hope of surviving — no matter what the temperature.

The Little Green Book of Revolution

The Little Green Book Of Revolution - Ethan Indigo SmithThe Little Green Book of Revolution is an inspirational book based on ideas of peaceful revolution, historical activism and caring for the Earth like Native Americans.

A pro-individual and anti-institutional look at the history of peaceful proactive revolution, it explores the environmental destruction inherent to our present energy distribution systems and offers ideas to counter the oligarchical institutions of the failing ‘New World Order’.

The Little Green Book of Revolution is available here on Amazon.

Previous articles by Ethan Indigo Smith:

Previous articles by Andy Whiteley:

About Ethan Indigo Smith:

Activist, author and Tai Chi teacher Ethan Indigo Smith was born on a farm in Maine and lived in Manhattan for a number of years before migrating west to Mendocino, California. Guided by a keen sense of integrity and humanity, Ethan’s work is both deeply connected and extremely insightful, blending philosophy, politics, activism, spirituality, meditation and a unique sense of humour.

Ethan’s publications include:

For more information, visit Ethan on Facebook and check out Ethan’s author page on Amazon.

About Andy Whiteley:

Andy Whiteley

Andy Whiteley is a former corporate manager turned writer, editor and co-founder of Wake Up World. An advocate of peaceful (r)evolution, Andy believes we are on a necessary path (albeit bumpy) to a renewed social model grounded in love, transparency, individuality, sustainability and spirit. Through his role at Wake Up World, he hopes to contribute positively to that transition.

Connect with Andy at

“Wake Up World, it’s Time to Rise and Shine!” 


Wake Up World's latest videos