The Keeling Curve
The first carbon dioxide measurements took place in 1958. It was officially a low-priority side project of the International Geophysical Year, 1957-58.
And that was yet another ICSU initiative.
-
But that’s not actually what’s of primary interest here. No, rather, it’s what Keeling contributed to in 1963 which should raise an eyebrow. Here it is -‘Implications of rising carbon dioxide of the atmosphere‘.
Yes, this was the very first time a ‘consensus’ was reported on carbon dioxide leading to, eventually, the present state of society where outright monetisation of nature iself is inching perilously close.
The report was sponsored by the Conservation Foundation, and it claimed - rather alarmingly - that we’d all die in a lake of fire, should we not curtail carbon dioxide emissions.
The list of attendees is… interesting. Because only two participants were experts on carbon dioxide. In other words - it was yet another cherry picked invite-only event; yet another conclusion in search of a ‘consensus’.
The 1963 report continues by admitting that carbon dioxide is not actually a pollutant at all, in fact, plant life would be more luxuriant should all fossil fuels be burned, that no exact model on the carbon cycle even exists, that… rather a lot of uncertainly still exists on the topic, that there’s a continuous exchange of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which also involves the oceans and the biosphere, that detected increase of carbon dioxide is below emitted values, and that no measurements have been made involving the oceans, and that man-made changes are smaller in magnitude than natural variation, and consequently, very hard to measure.
In other words, they know essentially nothing - well, apart from carbon dioxide being plant food. Yes, much like Bert Bolin, addressing the US Senate in 1976, they too were keenly aware of this fact back in 1963.
Next follows more uncertainty and guesswork, though they add that man-made sulphur additions to the atmosphere is reaching danger levels… before admitting that sulphur also is an important fertiliser of the biosphere. The bottom line here is that there isn’t enough data available. On anything, whatsoever. Oh yeah, and they also concede that 'there may be other large sources of co2 which are not so easy to distinguish‘.
They also don’t know how much of the alleged increase in oceanic temperatures is caused by the rise in co2 levels, or whether there even has been an increase at all, given that they cherry picked that dataset as well. Oh and there’s no information relating to the quantity of biomass on planet earth, so consequently, they have no idea whether it’s increasing or not. But they, in typical fashion, dare to venture a guess which naturally serves the objective; ‘it is more likely decreasing due to the activities of man‘.
This state of… absolute ignorance is then followed by adding that - ‘the most alarming thing about the increase of co2 is how little is actually known about it‘. Furthermore, careful measures have only been made for less than 10 years, and these were carried out in only three places on the planet. And this, of course, means that the data at this stage is absolutely worthless from a perspective of predictions.
But either way - page 21 reveals the true motive - what is required is a watchdog. Yes, we need to move to immediately regulate a complete unknown for sakes of… control. Page 22 finishes off by admitting that we know nothing about nutrient distribution in the oceans, nor terrestrial biota, nor man’s overall impact on… anything, whatsoever.
Standardised systems of measurement are called for, though data collection would be required carried out over years before they would be in a position to judge. In spite thereof, we need more scholars in this field, including social scientists.
They really do love those manipulating liars.
… and that’s it. The document finishes off with absolutely no listed references. Not even one.
If this report was a horse on a farm, I’d take it outside and shoot it.
So what happened next - everyone had a good laugh about this report, and it was never heard of again, right? Well - no. In 1965, acting US President, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory’s Council took it dead serious, and started planning for the apocalypse. The National Academy of Sciences, however, ‘expected no extraordinary climate change in their lifetimes’.
… and the fearmongering really didn’t abate. It 1968, Roger Revelle made all sorts of bug-eyed claims about exactly how many lakes of fire we’d all die in by the year 2000.
Now, a few things stand out about this story. Primarily all the missing bits.
See, not only did jolly old Roger receive a generous ‘grant’ courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation, but he also was deeply in bed with not only the ICSU, but the United Nations just as well. He further was a prime mover behind the establishmet of the IOC in 1956… and the establishment of SCOPE in 1969.
He’s just one, big coincidence all by himself!
He then went on to pen the 1956 paper, caling for the measurement of carbon dioxide during the International Geophysical Year, which as we saw then led to the Keeling curve and the fearmongering paper, used to kick LBJ into gear!
The fraudulent 1963 ‘carbon concensus’ would then be used to push the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, from where, hell was unleashed - though in fairness from which one initiative in particular was missing. See, there was no immediate link to the present day ‘payment for ecosystems’ initiative, nor fundamental valuation of said ecosystems in the first place.
But we do know is that the IIASA pioneered this work in 1975, with the first paper on carbon pricing.
But tracing that further back isn’t trivial. And besides, it’s strictly speaking not topical, because though carbon pricing was inverted and became carbon credits, there’s no reference to ecosystem services, less evaluation thereof. So let’s instead trace this backwards, starting with this 2008 paper, courtesy of the UNEP. And this document is so obviously contextual, that I can’t be bothered underlining key sections.
Beyond, two papers identify a stated ‘Ecosystem Valuation Forum’ convened by the EPA in 1991. Trouble is, there isn’t much to go by here, and no search engine or wayback deliver much on the topic. Unusually, Anna’s Archive yield much, either.
However, one of the Wayback links is… a CV. Specifically, that of Richard B Norgaard. And this outlines the participation of the Conservation Foundation.
Norgaard can be located on Wiki; ‘He is considered one of the founders of and a continuing leader in the field of ecological economics‘.
Oh yeah, and - ‘Norgaard is a lead author of the 5th Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and serves on the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management of the United Nations Environment Programme.‘
In other words, he’s very much related to the topic at hand.
And this link also provides somewhat of a clue, because now we truly have arrived at Laurence S Rockefeller’s area of expertise. In fact, per their own website -
‘Conservation was a special interest of founding trustee Laurance S. Rockefeller, … the Fund expressed its commitment to the environment primarily through grants to Laurance’s projects, including the …, the Conservation Foundation, the Nature Conservancy…‘
‘Laurance acted as an advisor on environmental matters to five U.S. presidents. He served on the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, a fact-finding group established by Congress, beginning in 1958. He chaired the 1965 White House Conference on Natural Beauty, a pivotal event in raising Americans’ environmental awareness. He chaired President Johnson’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Recreation and Natural Beauty and President Nixon’s Committee on Environmental Quality‘.
… the CEQ we saw over here. It launched in 1969 - post UNESCO biosphere conference - and under Al Gore in 1993, it launched the Task Force which in short provided the first longhand description of the Ecosystem Approach.
Now, if there’s one thing I have re-iterated continuously as of late, it’s that this entire ‘new economy’ is nothing short of outright fraud. Well, as it transpires, I’m not the only one who picked up on that. So did William B O’Neil - in 1990!
He outlines that the valuation method used - the ‘Contingent Valuation Method’ - in short requires an almost infinite amount of information, which no-one will ever accurately know. Consequently, the valuation attached is completely meaningless.
And yes, that valuation method is very much in use today.
In fact, even the UN SEEA is using this very same, fraudulent valuation method. And who are they? Well, I would explain, but I have some very important laughing to do.
Seriously, however, the ‘contingent valuation method’ does yield another lead. And this one pays off, because here’s an OECD page on the topic, identifying a 1963 (!) paper being the origin of this utter absurdity.
… this can then be traced further back to a paper by Robert K Davis; ‘Recreation planning as an economic problem’. But while the paper isn’t particularly interesting, his employment with Resources for the Future, Inc should raise an eyebrow...
… because you should by now have realised how this works - though, to be fair, the Ford Foundation made the larger ‘donation’; an at-the-time astronomical $7.6m.
Incidentally, those two weren’t the only initiatives coming out of the Conservation Foundation in 1963. Here’s another.
And ‘ethics’ I’ve covered a fair bit as of late. It ultimately leads to ‘ethics panels’ for the professionals (that will fire you for speaking up on, ie, covid ‘vaccines’), or ‘free speech’ legislation (which will see you censored for posting, ie, ‘misinformation’ on covid).
The Conservation Foundation is no more. It was absorbed by the WWF in 1990, and in 1996 a different organisation took over the name. Which, incidentally, makes it conveniently hard to trace, should you be one of those nosey inconveniencies.
The bottom line here is that in spite of being a colossal lie, that ‘carbon consensus’ has since 1963 driven society almost to the point, where a few foundations will get to charge you for merely existing.
And perhaps that’s why time should be just about up on these otherwise incredibly favourable arrangements, which clearly are abused through and through by a handful of organisations.
