Letter to Climate@MIT : Is Climate Science Religion or Science?

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 :
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

Full Copyright Notice

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified, for any purpose, granted, provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice contained within each Document are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, along with any embedded links within its main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All figures, images, quotations, and excerpts are used without permission based on non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research use only in the greater public interest. The usage is minimally consistent with the understanding of laws noted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”. Exclusion: All rights are expressly reserved for the usage of the terms (c) HumanbeingsfirstTM and (c) HumanbeingfirstTM which are the copyrighted and trademarked intellectual property of Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Reproduction Note: It is acceptable to reproduce any document in smaller serialized parts provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice within each document are also reproduced in each part and the entire document is reproduced. Please read http://humanbeingsfirst.org/#Legal-Disclaimer-Notice.

Caveat Emptor

Please be advised that Project HumanbeingsfirstTM fully cooperates with all law enforcement and other governmental agencies worldwide in rooting out Terrorism in all its nuanced shades and stripes in order to end its Neanderthal reign of terror upon all who are human beings first. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not distinguish between terrorists clad in turbans and those wearing suits, nor between the predatory rampages of the pirates vs. the emperors, albeit each is apportioned the measure of crime and guilt commensurate to their respective station of power and impact on their victims. Law enforcement personnel worldwide, but especially in the United States and the West, are encouraged to participate with Project Humanbeingsfirst. It is essential for all nations' state security apparatus to learn how to forensically identify the monumental supreme terrorists hiding in plain sight among us under legal cover, the real merchants of death, while they dutifully chase down the easy to spot handful of often deliberately manufactured pirates at sea.