Go to home page

This article appears in the April 30, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this article]

Are We Humans, Spacefarers—
Or ‘Earth Creatures’?

The roundtable discussion following Jason Ross’ presentation at the April 10 Manhattan Town Meeting included Dr. Kelvin Kemm, former Board Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation; nuclear engineer Dr. Jeffrey Philbin; former NASA meteorologist Thomas Wysmuller; oceanographer Dr. Julian Fell; and Diane Sare, LaRouche independent candidate from New York for U.S. Senate. The moderator was Megan Dobrodt of the Schiller Institute. Video of the meeting, including this roundtable discussion, is here.

Megan Dobrodt (moderator): Thank you very much, Jason, and thank you to Diane and Dr. Kemm, as well. Let’s pull all our guests onto the screen.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm: With population, there’ll be a natural brake on population, a natural human brake on population growth as time goes by, and that is when families become wealthy enough to look after themselves well. At the moment, it’s still the case that some very rural families will have large numbers of children, because they’re seen as the insurance policy for the adults as time goes by. Because they expect a number of the children to die, so to have people to look after the parents in their old age, traditionally they have a lot of children.

That’s happened in the U.K. and it happened across Europe 200-300 years ago; they had large families because they expected a high death rate. When you improve the standard of living, so the death rate is no longer high, and the general medical care is good, and lots of things improve, the natural improvement of life causes families to move into a First World type of living condition where they naturally limit the family. So that’s the best way to do it: Give them electricity, give them a 21st-Century, First World lifestyle, and the population will limit itself to the correct amount that you want.

Moderator: Thank you. As I mentioned, we have a number of qualified respondents who have been listening today, and I want to open it up to them, to see what they may want to add to the discussion or if they have any questions. If you are there, please unmute yourself, and introduce yourself.

Dr. Jeff Philbin: This is Jeff Philbin. I’m from Albuquerque, New Mexico; I am a nuclear engineer, and I thoroughly enjoyed the talks today. They were extremely well done.

I would like to add that with regard to the environment and the CO2 issue, CO2 improves plant life and growth, and the fact that we have a slightly higher parts per million [ppm] of CO2 in our environment today has resulted in the fact that there are larger green zones around, spreading out in certain areas of the planet, and plants use that additional CO2 and they thrive on it. In fact, many greenhouses purposely introduce CO2 to increase the productivity of their plants.

Our current environmental load of CO2 is about 400 ppm as I understand it, but in the past, based on scientific evidence from tree rings and so forth, the [atmospheric concentration of] CO2 has been as high as four times that, more like 1600-1700 ppm! So I have not been one to feel like there’s human-caused climate change. There’s sunspots and other things causing some of the climate changes that we’ve had, and we’ve had periodic warming trends and periodic cooling trends across the long history of this planet. And that’s been shown from scientific evidence.

Kemm: I’d like to say that I agree entirely with you, that if anything, the planet at the moment is CO2-deprived. If we get a bit more, we’ll get more greening of the planet, which is what the extreme environmentalists tell us we need. We can certainly see it; there’s evidence now to show that there’s plant growth taking place on the edges of the Sahara and all sorts of places, because of the fact that we’re up to about 420 ppm now from what it was. The planet went through a period of excessively low CO2, in fact, dangerously low. So we really need a lot more: But there’s no indication that it’s problematic. There’s also very, very little indication that the CO2 is linked to any global warming.

There is undoubtedly some global warming: There’s been about 1°C rise in about the last 150 years. Now, you always hear that there’s been a 150-year period and there’s a 1°C rise, and what you hear is that’s “since the beginning of the industrial age.” That is just a propaganda phrase.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Panelists in the discussion session (clockwise from upper left): Jason Ross (moderator), Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Dr. Jeffrey Philbin, Megan Dobrodt, Diane Sare, and Thomas Wysmuller.

By the way, if I take my hands and do that [claps], my hands have gone up in temperature by 1°. That’s the amount of temperature increase you’re talking about in one and a half centuries. Now 150 years ago, if I remember correctly, was the presidency of Abraham Lincoln; it was the time that Queen Victoria reigned in the U.K.; it was the time of the Crimean War. Why not say “since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln”? Why not say, “since the Crimean War” if you want a time indicator? But they always say, “since the beginning of the Industrial Age,” as if by implication it was the Industrial Age that caused the temperature rise. There’s actually minimal indication of this.

If you go back some time, there was a period, the Medieval Warm Period, usually called the MWP, where it would appear that the temperature rose to higher than now. That was followed by the Little Ice Age, which was extremely well documented, historically. At the time of the Little Ice Age, the Thames River froze over so solidly that people would ride horse-drawn carriages up and down the river, and they had ice fairs. There are paintings, you can look them up quite easily on the internet, paintings of ice fairs with hundreds of people walking around on the ice. That was how cold it was; that was at the time of Shakespeare. The time at which the first white settlers came to South Africa. The end of that period was when the first white settlers were going to North America—some of the inducement for those settlers was that they had gone through such poor conditions in Europe, where the cold had caused crop failures, it caused death through plague, energy shortages, and so on and so forth.

Why ‘Warming’ Now?

So we know that these extremes have occurred in relatively recent times. You don’t have to go back to geological times to the dinosaurs to find them. There was also Roman warming; there was a Minoan warming; they are all very well documented in the scientific and historical records. None of them were results of industrial carbon dioxide!

So why now? The answer is that the extreme green lobby wants a political reason to block the advance of industry because they want to control the economic growth of countries to restrain things to their idea of population growth, to their idea of who’s permitted to advance and who’s not permitted to advance. So they don’t want to see large amounts of energy brought online. And that is why they link nuclear in as well. When you say, “But nuclear doesn’t produce any CO2,” they say, “It doesn’t matter, we’ll find some other reason.” Then they come up with things like “Nuclear waste, the unsolved problem.” Nuclear waste is negligible! It’s very dangerous—high-level nuclear waste—but there’s so little of it, that it’s also well controlled by professionals.

The real waste problems that are looming right now, [are] wind turbine blades, left over solar panels—what are you going to do with all these solar panels, that have things like arsenic in them, that lasts forever! And all this carbon fiber that’s been put into these blades and so on. There’s a huge waste problem, but nobody talks about the “unsolved problem of wind and solar waste.” But they always want to bring up things like this about nuclear, which are fictitious!

So there’s a very suspicious element underneath all of this anti-nuclear and anti-energy, anti-coal, that’s going on. It’s not just to say that. There’s much more society manipulation that is designed into this thing, merely using the environment as one of the vehicles to launch these attacks. To my mind, nuclear, small modular reactors are the answer for virtually all African countries, and they should be striving for them to advance electricity production.

Moderator: Thank you. Jason, would like to respond?

Jason Ross: I think one of the ways this discussion has been taken over, is by painting everything as a yes or no kind of question. Like, “Do you deny climate change? Are you a denier?” Well, sometimes in the real world, things aren’t yes or no, and what’s important is “how much?” Do human beings have an impact on the climate? I can’t rule that out. I think that we do. Now, the question is: How much is that impact? And then, the question is, how much does it cost to try to prevent the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere? And how much does it cost to just enjoy having a warmer planet? Does that mean a few more air-conditioning units? How much does that cost? That’s one side of things, where the whole thing turns into yes or no, instead of really thinking through, gee, is it worth spending tens and tens of trillions of dollars to build unreliable sources of energy to address a problem that, even if it occurred, we could fix with air conditioning units? That’s one thing.

The second thing I want to bring up is the way “global warming” has turned into “climate change.” And that it seems that any bad weather event anywhere on the planet becomes attributed to climate change, as if bad weather never occurred before the Industrial Revolution—which is hogwash nonsense.

What it comes down to is an axiom that people hold, or are led to believe, that any change we make to the planet is somehow inherently bad. You’ve got to ask, what is the inherent perfection in a world untouched by human beings? Is it really good to have deserts? Is that better than having lush growth? I don’t think so. Is it perfect, the way things are before we touched them? No! The Earth changes all the time.

So instead of seeing any change as being inherently bad and a sin against Mother Earth—it’s basically like a religious cult—you’ve got to talk about what is the change? Is that useful, or not, and how do you assign value in those things. Well, how important is it to us as a human species and to our future?

The Sun’s Role and Sea Levels

Kemm: Well, I think that’s very valid. It’s not binary where it’s either a yes or no. There’s undoubtedly climate warming that has taken place of this 1° since the time of Abraham Lincoln. But of that 1°C, some of it is due to human influence; there’s no doubt about that, because the CO2 has been produced by industry. But it would appear that that’s a tiny, small amount, and inconsequential, virtually.

By far, the most likely reason that there’s global warming is due to magnetic variations on the Sun. Now, I can go into this in great detail, but the magnetic variations on the Sun interact with the magnetic field around the Earth, and that shields cosmic rays coming in from outer space. The cosmic rays coming in from outer space affect the cloud cover: When you’ve got more clouds, the Sun doesn’t reach the ground, and so the ground doesn’t warm up, and you get global cooling. If you’ve got less clouds, more Sun gets to the ground and the ground heats up and you get warming. And that correlation with the sunspots and with the magnetic field of the Sun can be tracked right back through the Little Ice Age, through the Medieval Warm Period, back to the Minoan warming, the Roman warming and so on.

There’s a far greater science correlation between the magnetic activity of the Sun, and the variations in temperature on the Earth, than there is with CO2. CO2, if anything, comes afterwards. If the ocean warms up, the ocean gives off CO2. If it’s cold, it takes CO2 up. I think all of us have used the soda stream machines, that if you want to make cold drinks fizzy, they always tell you, put the bottles in the fridge and make them nice and cold, and use them when they’re cold. The reason why you use the cold water in the soda stream is because cold water sucks up much more CO2 than warm water does. That’s well known. That’s why a cold ocean will suck up CO2, but a warm ocean will let some off: So if anything, it’s not that the ocean is warming because of CO2, it’s probably because the CO2 is increasing because the ocean is warming—because the planet is warming, due to the magnetic variations on the Sun.

… So, all of these demonstrations, marching in the street, Earth Day, and all of this to save the planet from CO2 is just plain and simply incorrect! But if you go to some of these extremists and say, “Look into the Sun, I’ve tried it—look into the science of the Sun, not look into the Sun [laughter]—if you go to the extremists and tell them, “Look into the science of the Sun,” they don’t want to hear it! They say, “No! You’re a denier!” And if you say, “But I can give you a better scientific answer,” they’re not interested, because you cannot accuse industry, if it’s the Sun. You cannot have a carbon tax, you cannot cause somebody to demand solar and wind power, and not use coal—all of that becomes a non-option, if you say that it’s natural! So they don’t want a natural solution, even if you can show that the science gives you the right answers and the natural solution.

So, the reasons behind all this solar and wind and hydrogen and heaven knows what else, all interlinked, has got a much deeper, suspicious origin than just trying to “save the planet.”

Moderator: I’m glad you brought that up. Let me bring someone in here, who might have something to say on this—Tom Wysmuller. Hi, Tom.

Tom Wysmuller: Hi, I’m Tom Wysmuller. I’m a former, Apollo-era NASA meteorologist. I’ve been working in different industries. But for the last 25 years, I’ve been thoroughly engrossed in climate change activities, and—I shouldn’t call it “climate change.” It started out as “global warming,” and then when the climate decided not to warm for 18-20 years, the so-called problem became known as “climate change.” By the way, the climate changes every year, in winter, to summer, and there’s a huge difference in climate, and believe me you feel it. That’s really “climate change.” The 1° increase that they talk about is minuscule to the actual temperature variation on the planet just because of its orbit around the Sun.

Dr. Kemm was deadly accurate when he talked about the solar cycles dominating climate on the Earth, and they do. And in fact, recently we’ve been in a decline, so that a number of Russian researchers believe that we’re entering a new Ice Age, or at least maybe a new Little Ice Age, and the evidence is strongly in their favor.

The rate of sea level change, which has been scaring everyone, has recently been found to be a mistake in the satellite reporting of sea levels! That’s handled in a separate presentation, and if Jason would like, I’ll send it to him, and he can make it available to everybody. So, as far as sea level rise is concerned, I think the case is closed.

It does not mean that your local area may not be subsiding, particularly if you live in Florida; if you live in Virginia Beach, yes, the land there is sinking for natural reasons. But there are places on Earth that are so-called “tectonically inert”: They don’t move up; they don’t move down. And that’s where you want to measure sea level. And the net sea level rise, consistent for over 150 years, is about 1.1 mm/year. Period. And that’s easily manageable: The Dutch have figured out how to do that, by building dikes and things like that, because Holland is actually sinking, much as parts of the American East Coast are sinking.

So these problems can be solved by people, by engineering, by using intelligence, and then focusing on other ways, like Dr. Kemm said, by developing new sources of energy, putting the brain power of humans behind the question, and coming up with different ways to do things. Like, for example, thorium nuclear: Now, thorium is element 90 on the Periodic Table. It is weakly radioactive, but when condensed can be made into a nuclear power plant that as a residue will not produce nuclear weapons, but just produce energy. And that is the reason why, in the 1950s, in the United States Atomic Energy Commission, we knew that thorium would work; but went over to uranium instead, because they could make bombs as a byproduct. We don’t need that.

There’s another advantage to a thorium plant: If you put one down, let’s say, near where Indian Point is, the thorium power plant can use all the spent fuel rods of the Indian Point power plant as fuel for itself, making their disposal part of finishing off the energy input that they can give, and making it a non-problem for disposing them.

There are lots of things that can happen, if we put our minds to it, and use the human brain to do what no giraffe can do, no cockroach can do, what no other life form on Earth can do, in solving this kind of problem, and solving it beautifully. And that’s what we need to—in fact, get more people to use more mental energy, and make these things happen, for all humanity, not just to preserve an insect, or some wildlife in Africa. I know the Brits want to use Southern Africa as a game preserve. Well, that’s nice, when Britain has a power grid and people there have a fairly decent lifestyle, and they should look down in Africa and see the lifestyle they’re disposing. It’s a travesty.

I think I’ve talked enough. We’ve got some brilliant people here on the stage. Go to it, folks!

No Protection for Human Beings

Moderator: Thanks, Tom! Actually, I want to ask Diane, do you have anything to say? I know a big part of your campaign has been to do exactly what Tom said, and get people to activate their minds, and start helping us change things.

Diane Sare: Sure. Actually, what I was thinking about while he was speaking is the storm-surge barrier that needs to be built between Sandy Hook in New Jersey and the Rockaways on Long Island, which is about five miles long. The American Society of Civil Engineers had a conference on this in 2009 and decided it would be much too expensive—which, of course, Hurricane Sandy was really very inexpensive (I’m being facetious). We had enormous damage from that storm, and what this barrier would protect are the ports of Elizabeth and Newark, all of Staten Island, and Lower Manhattan. It would be huge!

There’s a group of engineers who are trying to organize for this, but what they’re running up against, are people saying: We really don’t think you should do it until you do a “feasibility study” on sea-level rise, because we’re sure all the measurements are going to be totally different, and therefore, the sea-level rise precludes it from functioning. Which I think is an absurd argument. But Tom, as long you’re here, if you’d like to say something about that, it would be great.

Well, it is facetious, as you say. I will send Jason a link to that last presentation, to show the divergence between satellite and tide gauges, and you have to resolve that divergence. And the people who you’re talking about, who protest against building the dikes and things like that, are people who are believing in the wrong information; that needs to be straightened out.

And by the way, the great hurricane of 1938 inundated Providence, Rhode Island, so that there are marks on some of the second-stories in downtown Providence, where the ocean rose because a combination of the hurricane driving up water, and an unfavorable tide.

By the way, New York is susceptible to a 20-foot surge. Hurricane Sandy only made it up to 13 or 14 feet. So we do have to protect Manhattan. Lower Manhattan, by the way, became “Lower Manhattan” because of landfill, and they didn’t put enough land in there—very simple. That decision was made in the 1800s, and we are living with the consequences of it. I heartily agree with protecting Manhattan, once and for all; get it done with. No more damage from a hurricane to Lower Manhattan. It’s almost nonsensical to think of anything else.

Moderator: Thank you, Tom. I think we have one more person—let’s see. There you are, Dr. Fell.

Dr. Julian Fell: I’m Julian Fell, I live in Canada. I got a doctorate at the University of Maine, half a century ago, on work I did in Antarctica, mostly on oceans and biology. I’ve had a long interest in astronomy and the controversy over so-called “global warming.” I sensed it was manure from the very day when it first came out in the 1980s. I suspect among the speakers here, there’s a lot more expertise than has come out, because every one of you has spoken of something that I have studied at one point or another.

But let me bring my particular spin to it. Mark Twain: It’s a lot easier to fool people than it is to convince them afterwards that they’ve been fooled. And I’m afraid that is very true at the moment. A Nobel Prize winner pointed out that this climate science is, in fact, pseudo-science. It doesn’t even qualify as junk science. And he provided some definitions, which I found quite amusing.

Regarding the Medieval Warm Period, cattle and sheep were grazed in southwestern Greenland, and barley was growing there. And the fences they built around their fields and the barns they built—these were the Vikings—are still there today, you can still see them, but you cannot graze cattle or sheep, or grow barley there today. Greenland sounds way north, but in fact the latitude is about the same as the Orkney Islands, northern Scotland and the middle part of Norway.

Where ‘Warming’ Is Stored

I must be the ultimate denier, because my conclusions from all the work I’ve done, is that CO2 doesn’t warm at all. It cannot warm; there isn’t enough of it. CO2 absorbs radiation only in a very narrow band, the 15-micron band, and a concentration in the atmosphere of about 250 ppm is enough to saturate the supply of 15-micron radiation. The radiation comes from the ground due to the temperature of the ground, and is subject to emissions—the frequency sets by Wien’s law, in physics, and the amount set by Stefan Boltzmann’s law. Stefan Boltzmann’s law basically makes all the predictions of global warming impossible. You cannot warm a planet up 3°, when your radiation rate of loss increases at the fourth power of the temperature….

We in Canada are a big food producer, and increases in temperature make us a much better food producer. Yet the politicians are trying to shut that down. They can’t, of course, because you can’t change the climate. They think they can do that. So, I questioned them, “Why do you want to shut down food production, which is what we can do more for the planet than anyone?” I get blank stares. I start discussing physics, and they eventually look at me and say, “I don’t want to talk to you any more,” and turn their back on me and run away.

The real cause of climate, of course, as mentioned, is the change in solar radiation, or at least the amount of sunlight that gets to ground level. The electromagnetic emission from the Sun hasn’t changed. It varies less than I think a quarter of a percent in all known history. What changes of course, is the sunspot emissions, and this is what influences—and the magnetic field of the Sun, and it interacts with the magnetic field of the Earth, and between them, they control the amount of cosmic rays, the … cosmic rays that can penetrate the atmosphere and create cloud cover. Which is why during periods of low sunspots, we get more cloud cover, and the temperature goes down.

Now, so far as CO2: British Columbia, where I live, enacted a carbon tax, and using their numbers, and their claims of how effective it was, it influences the planet’s temperature by five-millionths of a degree. So, if you tax everybody to that extent, you’re still not going to have any effect on the climate. But it’s a tax that makes believers feel good, and the rest of it’s just another damned tax.

What is interesting to me, because this is what I’ve been dwelling on myself, getting back to my original work here, is the thermal masses. If you wish to increase the temperature of a planet, you have to increase the amount of heat that is being stored permanently on the surface of the planet. To this degree, the atmosphere is a terrible storage area, it has no capacity to store heat whatsoever!

And yet, I find every discussion about climate change seems to dwell only on the atmosphere. The atmosphere has only one-eight-hundredth the density of water, and about one three-thousandth the capacity of water [as to] the amount of heat it can hold per kilogram. When you look at the surface of the Earth, particularly in the latitudes that absorb heat; that is, about 45° either side of the solar zenith—the solar zenith, of course, wanders back and forth between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere, due to the tilt of the planet, on an annual basis. But it’s still collecting the same amount of heat per day. Other than the elliptical nature of the orbit, which is very slight, but it does affect the amount of heat coming to the planet by roughly 4% between perihelion and aphelion.

The solar collection surface within this 45° of the solar zenith is about 80% seawater; and seawater, of course, has four times the amount of heat it can absorb when changing temperature, than the ground does. And when you start crunching all the numbers, the atmosphere has less, way less than 1% of any ability to store heat; the ocean takes in about 94%; and the rest is the surface of the land. And these are the parts that participate in actual climate, which means they can absorb and hold heat. In the ocean, it’s the uppermost 50 meters that are influenced seasonally by heat, and land, you go down about 5 meters and you reach a zone where the temperature never changes.

Moderator: I’m sorry to interrupt, Dr. Fell, but I think what you’re getting at is really an important point in the discussion here, which you’ve fairly established, which is that there’s no lack of proof that what’s being claimed on the part of people who are saying that the developing world shouldn’t develop and should have windmills and so forth—there’s no shortage of science to disprove all of the so-called climate change alarmism.

I think it does come down, really, to number one, the moral question that we were discussing at the beginning; and number two,—and I want to see if Diane has something to say on this—the organizing question, because you called yourself a bit of a pessimist. But I think what surprises many people who run into the Schiller Institute, is that although we are very clear on how bad the state of the world is, we’re actually quite optimistic about being able to change it. So, I wanted to see if Diane might want to respond to what you’ve brought up from that standpoint.

Sare: Thank you—actually, it caused me to reflect on this. You know, these crazy people would have you take the view, and it’s really terribly arrogant: I mean, there’s 8 billion humans on the planet; each one of us shouldn’t think that we’re the greatest genius in the universe, or ever will be. But you almost have the idea that what they want to portray is [that] our planet and atmosphere is like a gigantic closed area, and driving an automobile or something is like a thermostat. So if you curtail your activity, you can actually chart how much you’re going to prevent global warming. Which is, of course, completely absurd, beyond reason, and extremely pompous, to take that view of humanity, which has come rather recently to the planet at any rate.

But I think what everyone has said in terms of the organizing, gives us a lot of ammunition particularly to organize and recruit younger people, because if you’re 20 years old, do you really want to have the view that the planet is going to end because of your birth, in the next 18 months? Or a year? You would hope to have a future that’s 50 years, 60 years, 70—a long time into the future. And I think that’s also why I was very struck, actually, at the Schiller Institute conference, when we heard from people in Yemen, or Iraq. Iraq has been being bombed for 30 years, and the Iraqi people were far more optimistic than many Americans I’ve spoken to.

I think that’s really worth considering, because there’s something innate in human beings that we know that, as Schiller said, “We were born for that which is better.” That there is something that we can affect for the good, to make life better, to create the conditions where humans can actually work on the development of our creative powers of reason, as opposed to doing physical labor, or something similarly mind-deadening….

Moderator: Thank you. We’re nearing the end of our program, so I’d like to ask each of our speakers if they have a final thought or final comment. Why don’t we start with Jason?

Ross: … What I’d really suggest people do is to read through the Great Reset report, the “Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Crushes the ‘Green New Deal’ Fraud” that The LaRouche Organization has published. It’s at http://thelarouche.org/reset. I’d really encourage you to read through that pamphlet, and the material that’s linked within it; you can get it on the website there. I think it does a very good job at helping you understand what the political background is behind creating this. It takes it out of the discussion of simply, “carbon dioxide” or something like that, and puts it in a broader perspective. A perspective of a battle between an attempt to develop the human species, based on the idea that every human being is potentially valuable as a genius of the future, and the idea that human beings are essentially animals, and that a few animals—“more equal than others,” as they see themselves—intend to simply rule over the rest of us, as if we were unnecessary cows.

Moderator: Dr. Kemm, would you like to make any closing remarks?

Kemm: What I would like to say, is to say to people in general, “Think for yourself and go and question.” There’s far too much information that comes about, particularly on the Earth Days and these sorts of things, where all sorts of things are said, and it’s said as if this is final, we know the answers, all you listeners don’t have to think for yourselves. You just have to do as you’re told.

What we actually want, is we want people to say: “Does that sound realistic? Is there more to it than meets the eye? Am I being taken for a ride?” I believe there are a lot of well-meaning people that are saying the wrong things because they’ve been fed the wrong information. I find many people, when you tell them the truth, and say, “What you believed can’t be true,” they say “Thank heavens, you’ve pointed out to me what is the reality,” and who are much more comfortable in seeing the truth. So I would like to say to people, “Think for yourselves. Look at something; if it doesn’t feel real to you, look a little bit deeper and find out is there more to this than I’m being told?” Thank you.

Moderator: And Diane?

Sare: I would like to say that our intention is not that we’re exposing the fraud of manmade climate change or global warming as a protest movement, but because human civilization actually depends on our success. You saw some of these curves that Jason showed in terms of energy production, energy flux-density—and similar curves of population, which requires an increased amount of energy consumption per capita to sustain. Conversely, if you reduce the amount of energy throughput, you will have a hyperbolic collapse of population. You will have genocide on a mass scale, which Megan referenced at the beginning, and therefore, it’s simply not acceptable. And I would urge everybody listening to resolve that, on your watch, alive on this planet, you are not going to allow the billionaires at Davos, these bankers who are funding this, BlackRock and so on—it’s all in the pamphlet—to get away with ramming through their policy.

I think there’s enormous opposition. We’re seeing some of that coming now from India, from China; this is excellent. There’s great reason to think that it’s not going to go over very well in the United States, but it has to be organized. So don’t presume we’re going to fail! We can beat this, and circulating the pamphlet is crucial. We’re also interested in knowing what kind of responses you’re getting. We have people who are available, and as you can see, many qualified people who might make themselves available, if you want to organize forums where maybe you feel like you aren’t well enough informed to address it, but you’d like someone else to come in—anything we can do to defeat this, we will back you up. So please organize, boldly and aggressively, and reach as many people as you can, and circulate this report.

Moderator: OK! Those are our marching orders.… Get in touch with us: You can go to http://thelarouche.org/reset to get a copy of the pamphlet, and get in touch with us and start organizing!

Back to top    Go to home page