Letter to Tariq Banuri, Chairman HEC, On Global Warming From Zahir Ebrahim

December 12, 2018
Dear Dr. Tariq Banuri,
Hello. This is my second letter to you. Perhaps you haven't got around to reading the first one yet that spoke to your new role as the chairman of HEC. It asked you to rethink public education for Pakistan from K-18 and beyond from first principles. I look forward to receiving an acknowledgment after you get to my letter dated December 02, 2018. It is titled: Strategy of Clean Break - Abolish HEC and Rethink Higher and Lower Education.
In reviewing your credentials as an ordinary Pakistani concerned with the dismal failing of Pakistan's education system, and as I wondered why Syed Babar Ali, OBE, chose to import a scholar from the United States to lead HEC --- couldn't they find anyone competent in Pakistan --- I was most impressed by your enormous contributions to empire. Especially, by your being part of the climate change team that was awarded the Nobel prize for controlling cow emissions, I mean CO2, aka global warming. You list, inter alia, the following notable publications on your webpage at the University of Utah (I reproduce these here for my own future reference):
CONTRIBUTION TO OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
  • 2011                Climate Change, Durban, and Rio+20, Paper presented at UNDP Conference on Climate Change, Algiers, 11-13 October 2011
  • 2011                Contributor, World Economic and Social Survey 2011 (Technological Change and Sustainable Development)
  • 2011                Contributor (and Main Author of Section on Sustainable Development), UN System-wide Study on the Implications of the Fukushima Disaster
  • 2011                Main Author and Editor, Secretary General’s Report to 2nd Preparatory Committee Meeting of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development
  • 2010                Contributor and Convenor, Technical Note on Global Green New Deal for Climate, Energy, and Development
  • 2010                Main Author and Editor, Secretary General’s Report to 1st Preparatory Committee Meeting of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/N1070657.pdf).
  • 2009                Main Author and Editor, Secretary General’s Report on Climate Change and its Possible Security Implications (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/509/46/PDF/N0950946.pdf?OpenElement)
  • 2009                Contributor, World Economic and Social Survey 2009 (Climate Change and Sustainable Development)
  • 2009                Co-author, DESA Policy Brief, Global Green New Deal for Sustainable Development, New York: United Nations
As an ordinary layman, but not completely bereft of all commonsense that is now typical of our national ethos, I have been writing about this issue of “global warming” since at least since 2008, when I wrote this response to a Financial Times article in Dec 2008 in which the FT editor used “global warming” as one of the three justifications for enabling world government. I straightforwardly demonstrated that the premise as well as the evidence was based on sophistry in all three cases, and I especially explained the “global warming” mantra as an imperial scam laced in pseudo science for pushing an elitist political agenda in an addendum. Ten years later, I wrote the following open letter to 22 MIT climate scientists, and I would like to share it with you: https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2018/10/letter-climate-mit-religion-or-science.html
Here is a brief snippet from the letter:
Begin excerpt
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
Dear respected 22 MIT Professors and Scientists of Climate@MIT :
Hello.
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.
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.
...
So, I must ask once again, in all the humility that is the station of a common man harboring no illusions of the √úbermensch 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 √úntermenschen 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.”
End excerpt
If that short snippet tickled the reasoning cells in your neuronal circuits, please continue reading the full letter and its enclosure detailed report demonstrating the political science behind the pseudo science of global warming here: https://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2018/10/letter-climate-mit-religion-or-science.html
As I often remind myself first, and many high-flying distinguished academics and scientists who echo imperial truths couched in the gobbledok of science, let's not be like the scientists of the Third Reich surrendering to the “Sieg Heil” du jour, such that, under some new victor's justice, an Operation Paperclip would be needed to save our skins.
There is a lot to be learnt for those who have studied at Harvard and MIT et. al. --- it takes virtually twice as many years to unlearn the imperial truths implanted in one's mind before one can learn the Socratic ones.
I look forward to receiving your comments on my letter to climate scientists, and what you might think as my misperceptions. I understand you have matters of great national importance to attend to, but if two plus two is making five instead of four, then, there is nothing more urgent than to learn to do simple arithmetic correctly before one can lead any institution. As the patron saint of modern science stated the fact of the matter for all times: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”.
And yet we see the churches of science resurging into prominence in the twenty-first century.
I take the liberty of cc'ing Pakistan's preeminent physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy who, like yourself, is very much an imperial establishmentarian scholar who accepts and re-pitches all constructs of empire in toto to Pakistanis in the guise of a gadfly, and another preeminent establishmentarian physicist of Pakistan, Mujahid Kamran, who unlike both of you, is in the opposing skeptics camp to anything empire.
Please take the time to read the open letter to MIT scientists, all of you, even if it be from an ordinary common man. It is our children and grandchildren whose education you have commanded. That gives me the right to ask who you are and what you stand for. The last time I checked, as I buried my father, the maggots eat us all without making any distinction, patricians and plebes alike, theists and atheists alike. But for the well lived life, whether theist or atheist, the search for truth has forever remained the holy grail of the honest intellect. Here I don't speak of the esoteric and spiritual truths upon which consensus is not possible. Here I simply mean separating religion from science and focussing on the science where consensus is driven by the empiricism of the scientific method alone. Minimally, that takes ma'arifat of the domains that fund big science, it is not as pristine as it is made out to be, and ma'arifat of those who participate in it for their own self-interests. None of them are Mr. Spock.
Best Regards
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org


Letter to Tariq Banuri On Global Warming From Zahir Ebrahim