b.
After
emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun
is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’
in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the
season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with
high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the
peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ but sunspot numbers are running at less
than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by
experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field
measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25,
whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. Much worse, the
sun’s output is likely to progressively decrease until 2100.
When both
the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to
1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’
back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to
flip in the next few years to its negative mode.
For the
last two decades, warmist climatologists found it difficult admitting that the
sun and oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and
1997. No more as prospects draw near of a mini ice age that could rival the
70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
My pal, James
Delingpole of the UK Telegraph jocularly headlined his last post as “Children just aren't going to know what sun
is”. James of course was taking a dig at Dr. David Viner, UEA-CRU
climatologist who prophesized in 2000 “Children
just aren't going to know what snow is”.
But this is not a laughing matter and future children living in the mid
latitudes may not see much of the sun in any year, if it all it remains in hibernation
till 2100.
The gravy train which
NGOs like Oxfam, Greenpeace; ChristianAid, ActionAid (and their likes) had
hitched on to during the last two decades are coming to an abrupt end. And as
they pick themselves up from the crash, they will find that if they survived, only
to end up a laughing stock. Their advocacy and programmes were singularly focussed
to “adapting” to global warming at a
time when the planet was actually fast hurling into a Little Ice Age. It is the same kind of tragic irony if India
were to amass their entire defence forces in the southern coastlines to counter
Sri Lanka and Maldives when their real security threats were China and Pakistan
on their northern borders! That’s the kind of big hole the bust of the global warming
scam punched into the credibility of these NGOs!
There could be several alternatives why these NGOs find themselves in
this wretched predicament. The first could be that they had no idea what the
whole science of climatology was about. If so, why did they arrogate themselves
the right to prescribe national and international policies? And having done so,
what does it make them out to be? Scamsters?? The second alternative could be
that they had the requisite climatology expertise but they nevertheless choose
to misinform and implement dubious programmes as dictated by their funding
compulsions. If so, what does it paint them to be? Prostitutes?? And if this
agenda, restricting development of developing countries all in the name of
curbing "climate change";
what does it paint these NGOs? Eco-imperialists? And being eco-imperialists and
still talking on behalf of developing countries, what character do these NGOs
demonstrate? Hypocrites? In all these cases, the damage they have inflicted is
not merely to themselves but the NGO sector as a whole. And that’s the sad
part.
The Columbia Journalism Review provides
us an insight to the workings of an INGO: “Lauren Gelfand, a correspondent for Jane’s Defence Weekly who is based in
Nairobi, took a year off from journalism to work for Oxfam. Gelfand says that
her Oxfam experience helped her to understand just how much attention NGOs put
on getting their story told. All the talking points are carefully worked out….
It’s a huge bureaucracy and there are as many levels of control as in any
government... To be fair to the NGOs, Gelfand says, it’s easier to sell a
famine than to effect real, common-sense policy change. And, she says, she
continues to believe that most aid workers do what they do because they want to
make a difference. Nonetheless, alot of what Oxfam does is to sustain Oxfam.”
But these NGOs wield great power – and yet are accountable to
no one. And why should this be? The issue of accountability is thorny for NGOs.
Unless, an NGO has a very specific and defined mandate with a target
population, such as saving tribal livelihoods in the Amazon forest, its client
base will be so broad that it’s almost impossible to judge whether it is being
responsive to its intended clients. In effect, there are often no specific
clients to hold an NGO accountable.
This is probably why it would be business as usual for NGOs. If one scam
ends, they will probably enter another as lucrative as the last “to sustain themselves”. Would the Board
of Directors of these NGOs offer to quit? Probably not. Would the CEO of their (international)
corporate office quit? Probably not. Would their country directors in India
quit? Probably not. They probably have skins thick as a rhino and stick to
their chairs like limpets!!
Dr.
Sam Vaknin, author of "NGOs: The Self-Appointed Altruists" once
commented:
"In both
types of organizations - Western NGOs and NGOs elsewhere - there is a lot of
waste and corruption, double-dealing, self-interested promotion, and, sometimes
inevitably, collusion with unsavory elements of society. Both organizations
attract narcissistic opportunists who regards NGOs as venues of upward social
mobility and self-enrichment. Many NGOs serve as sinecures, "manpower
sinks", or "employment agencies" - they provide work to people
who, otherwise, are unemployable. Some NGOs are involved in political networks
of patronage, nepotism, and cronyism.
Narcissists are
attracted to money, power, and glamour. NGOs provide all three. The officers of
many NGOs draw exorbitant salaries (compared to the average salary where the
NGO operates) and enjoy a panoply of work-related perks. Some NGOs exert a lot
of political influence and hold power over the lives of millions of aid
recipients. NGOs and their workers are, therefore, often in the limelight and
many NGO activists have become minor celebrities and frequent guests in talk
shows and such. Even critics of NGOs are often interviewed by the media
(laughing).
Finally, a slim
minority of NGO officers and workers are simply corrupt. They collude with
venal officials to enrich themselves.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment