How Trump Knows that Continued Global Warming Will Make Earth Uninhabitable 100 Years From Now

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

He knows it because his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon — a polymath — was personally involved in proving it.

Bannon was brought into a major scientific experiment in 1994 as its “Acting CEO” to find a way that would avoid the experiment’s earlier finding that within a hundred years (i.e., by approximately 2095) this planet will be virtually uninhabitable unless global warming can and will quickly be reversed. 

At that time, on 13 January 1995, Bannon was explaining the problem. He wasn’t saying that the experiment’s prior findings had been that death would result, but instead casually discussed those findings, vaguely suggesting that they might have been mere computer simulations, which they weren’t. The lead-in to him was at 2:00 in the video, where Bernd Zabel, Director, Biospheric Operations, speaks: “[This experiment] gives us the power to measure what happens, like air pollution, different CO2; we can measure here, instead of waiting generations, you can measure that over a six-month period.”

Bannon’s voice then is heard, explaining:

“What a lot of the scientists who are studying global change, and studying the effects of greenhouse gases, many of them feel that the Earth’s atmosphere in a hundred years is what Biosphere 2’s atmosphere is today [which atmosphere the experiment soon confirmed to be impossible for life to continue, no way to avoid this conclusion]. We have [in a hundred years] extraordinarily high CO2, we have very high nitrous oxide, we have high methane, we have lower oxygen [which gas is, of course, essential for humans] content, and so the power of this place [the hermetically sealed domed-in area] is allowing those scientists who are involved in studying global change, and which in the outside world [outside of their dome] really had to do with computer simulation, this actually allows them to study and monitor the impact of enhanced CO2, and other greenhouse gases, on humans, plants.” 

What he ultimately found there, in “Biosphere 2,” was that no way exists to avoid the conclusion that that assessment he described (planetary death) would be the result of not reversing global warming; so, the entire operation was terminated. 

Here’s why it was terminated with no announcement of its devastating finding:

The financier who owned it, Ed Bass, was an oil billionaire and one of the Bass Brothers who soon was (along with his brothers, all of them relatives of the oil tycoon Sid Richardson) to be catapulting George W. Bush into the White House as the #1 global-warming denier (something crucially valuable to the oil-and-gas companies — especially in the U.S. White House). 

Ed Bass knew that if he could scientifically establish that global warming would actually not be bad for life on Earth, then his hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar gamble on financing this experiment would return far more than that in PR income from other oil-and-gas companies. Ultimately, he spent $200 million on it before abandoning the experiments. It was a lot of money, even for that billionaire.

Biosphere 2’s calculations from its earlier experimental data had predicted that the plants and animals (including humans) wouldn’t survive without drastic reductions in global-warming gases. Bannon was now the CEO of Biosphere 2, running actually a second and more rigorously controlled round of experiments there, to determine with more certainty what the result would actually be of doing nothing about global warming. 

The conditions he described in the video were what the financier was hoping that the new controlled experiment would disprove. (With the lowered oxygen-content, and the far higher nitrous oxide and the high methane, humans could not exist, and fires would rage uncontrollably in global burning, which would lower the planet’s oxygen-content even more.)

The finding of Biosphere 2 turned out to be the contrary to that hope, which was the hope of all the carbon-fuels industries; and, so, the entire Biosphere operation was terminated and nothing was published from it. (That’s similar to what the sugar-industry did with the ‘scientific’ research that they had financed, and what the tobacco-industry did, and what the GMO industry did, and what all industries do: they cherry-pick what they submit for ‘scientific’ publication, and so make ‘science’ a mere handmaiden to propaganda.)

The experiment had been introduced to the public as if it were testing human survival in interplanetary travel. Thus, it was called “Space Biosphere Ventures.” This way, if it failed to obtain the desired result — which is what happened — it could simply be described as having been an unsuccessful experiment pertaining to space-travel.

That’s the way the newsmedia reported, and still discuss, it. Even today, wikipedia, and even ecological sites, and even scientists, give the oil-and-gas industries’ cover-story about it, as if describing it this way were a historical account of the matter; and as if this type of institutional ‘science’ (selective publication and non-publication of scientific studies that are financed by interests which have a financial stake in their outcomes) constitutes real science; the myths thus go on — and so lead us to an “End Times” that will actually result from a denial of science, a mere aping of science. Corrupt ‘science’ is no science at all. It’s just a form of PR. It is a variant of religion (manipulated and faith-based mass-beliefs — mass-propaganda), not of science, at all. Why did even environmental organizations have no curiosity about an oil billionaire’s financing such a costly study of human survival during space-travel? They didn’t think to be at all fishy, that cover-story?

Insiders within the petroleum industry had been concerned since the 1970s that maybe they’d need to stop doing what they were doing, and so Exxon Corporation financed their own research, whose findings in 1979 confirmed those of the existing scientific consensus, at which moment Exxon buried the findings and simply pushed forward with oil-and-gas exploration to find even more carbon to burn into the atmosphere and make even more money for themselves. Exxon publicly contradicted the global-warming consensus, and, like the rest of the carbon-fuels industries, poured millions of dollars into ‘non-profits’ that denied the existence or human causation of climate-change. But all of those studies, both pro and con, were based only upon theoretical models that were based upon real-world data, and Ed Bass in the 1980s decided to fund the first real-world physical micro-model of the Earth’s atmosphere, to find out whether perhaps the situation wasn’t so dire after all — which favorable empirical finding, of course, would be enormously valuable to all of the carbon-fuels industries to promote. 

In the period 1991-1995, Ed Bass spent 200 million dollars on this, which was the first-ever series of increasingly rigorously controlled experiments employing a hermetically sealed miniature — a miniaturized physical, instead of merely a computerized, model — of Earth’s biological-and-physical ecosystem. He did it in order to test empirically whether this planet’s ecosystem will improve, decline, or end, if the growth of carbon gases continues on its existing course. Planetary death within a hundred years was found, and therefore the myth continues that these experiments were about space-travel and came to no conclusion; the cover-story prevails, history is suppressed. Myths prevail this way.

Unlike the earlier Exxon-funded study, the one that Bass funded would not be able simply to be hidden from the public; so, that cover-story was invented in order to make possible hiding its finding if the outcome turned out to be other than what was hoped-for.

Apparently, the people who had been initially hired to live in this controlled environment did not know what the actual purpose of the experiments was. Bannon was hired by Bass in order to enforce their continued participation according to their five-year contract commitment, once the environment they were living in was just starting to become unlivable. The fired employees claimed that Bass was committed to paying them even if they had been fired for just cause. But, of course, once the employees knew how dangerous their job actually was, they quit; they wouldn’t continue with the existing situation. According to USA Today, on 15 November 2016:

The first two-year experiment was besieged with problems. A scientist was injured and had to be evacuated, crops wouldn’t grow, carbon dioxide levels soared, the dome was infested with ants and cockroaches and costs were skyrocketing to about $1 million a month, according to court records and interviews.

Nonetheless, “Bannon successfully managed the project until it was transferred to Columbia University in 1996, which operated it as a research site. In 2007, it was sold to the University of Arizona.” Bannon hired new people and also made changes in the experiments, so that there could be no doubt as to what the results would be meaning. Then, without any announced findings, when Bass sold the operation in 1996, that was the end of his effort to overcome (by means of the first and only miniaturized physical model of the Earth’s environment) the existing scientific consensus regarding climate change. He had financed the research, but didn’t want to do yet further damage to his net worth by publishing the results.

The likelihood is practically nil that President-elect Trump hasn’t been informed about the actual fact by his chief strategist, who played the key role in the final round of these controlled experiments. Bannon clearly described there the atmospheric issues that were being examined, and they all pertained to global ‘warming’. He was overseeing the ultimate physical-and-biological test about this matter, which is of such crucial interest to oil-and-gas billionaires.

And all of the additional acquired evidence from the Earth’s own biosphere — our planet — has been confirming this, so that our planet has now entered clearly into the end-stage “emergency” from which there can be no exit other than soon a lifeless planet: subsequent events confirming yet further the findings by Biosphere II, by repeating those findings but now on a planetary scale. The Conservative leader of Britain, Theresa May, responded to this by terminating her government’s operation that tracks climate-change: conservatives had held off action against global burning until the process had gotten clearly out-of-control, and now they stop even tracking our accelerating descent into oblivion. On the U.S. Supreme Court the Republicans even terminated President Obama’s only real action against global burning. But the meaningful failures weren’t in the judiciary, but instead in the Executive branch during the entire period after Biosphere 2, including especially the Presidency of George W. Bush (chosen, of course, by the Republican judges), which sealed our planet’s coffin.

Any optimism, after this sequence of events, has to be of a very limited type; but, within that scope, the coming Trump Presidency can reasonably be discussed, as follows:

For a realistic hopeful interpretation of the future Trump Presidency, see this.

For a realistic hopeless interpretation of the future Trump Presidency, see this.

At the present moment, I myself am on the fence about Trump’s Presidency. The best sense that I can make of the current situation, and my chief worry about it, is actually even shorter-term than global burning. This concern is about how quickly the more-violent stages of the period we have remaining will arrive; and it’s that the Trumpians don’t understand the war between Sunni Islam, led by Saudi Arabia, versus Shiite Islam, led by Iran, and that they therefore don’t recognize that America is on the wrong side of this — we’re partnered with, and against, the wrong people, in Islam’s global war. Iran isn’t and never was America’s enemy; America, ever since overthrowing Iran’s progressive democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and replacing him with a fascist dictatorship, has been Iran’s enemy. All the aggression in U.S.-Iranian relations has actually been on America’s side (which ended up producing in 1979 — as “blowback” against America’s Dulles-brothers fascism — the fundamentalist-Shiite takeover of Iran’s government). By contrast, 9/11 was a Saudi operation. Fundamentalist-Sunni aggression against the U.S. is clear, but it’s unaddressed because the U.S. aristocracy are allied with those Sunni aristocracies. The U.S. under Trump should gradually build toward an official U.S. apology to the Iranian people (but the Sauds and Thanis and Sabahs, and other fundamentalist-Sunni aristocrats, would be outraged against that, because they lead this fascism and rely upon the U.S. aristocracy to protect them and their regimes).

This U.S.-fascist 1953 coup in Iran was America’s original sin. It still poisons world affairs. Trump’s Presidency will fail if he fails to understand this basic fact of recent history.

The brilliant pseudonymous journalist and news-commentator “Tyler Durden” posted at his “Zero Hedge” site on November 19th “War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trump’s Foreign Policy”, and described in a thoroughly unbiased way the Trumpians’ internal conflict. To boil it down: the “Neo-Cons” want to reduce President Trump’s focus against jihadists, and increase the focus against both Iran and Russia. (Congressional Democrats are, like congressional Republicans, overwhelmingly in the “Neo-Con” camp, though they don’t refer to themselves as being “neoconservatives,” nor any other type of “conservatives.” Hillary Clinton herself was strongly neoconservative though she never said so publicly. She also was pro-global-warming, though she never said so publicly.)

Unlike the issue of global burning (euphemistically called ‘warming’), Trump is probably ignorant of the issue of U.S.-Iranian relations, and of the global war between Sunni and Shiite Islam. He might even be ignorant of the shameful continuation of the anti-Russian Cold War by America after it had ended on the Russian side in 1991. Whether he will act in accord with either understanding (global burning, and/or our wrong alliances and wars) remains still unclear. But at least in regard to global burning, he almost certainly understands the truth: given that his chief strategist is Stephen Bannon, Trump would have to be an idiot not to. Whatever he might say or do about global burning, he can reasonably be presumed to know the truth about that matter, irrespective of whether he knows the truth about history during the past century.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Army of Addicts

    Where did the dancing Israeli’s get their inside info and top end cameras while on a mover’s income?

  • justquitnow

    This blog was always trashing Hillary with the most dire and extreme rhetoric it could muster. Well now you got Trump to write about….good job!

  • kimyo

    only in desperation would one attempt to use the example of bio-sphere2 to predict conditions on earth. whatever was going on there, is sure wasn’t science.

    from the wiki

    On April 1, 1994 a severe dispute within the management team led to the ousting of the on-site management by federal marshals serving a restraining order, leaving management of the mission to the Bannon & Co. team from Beverly Hills, California.[24]

    At 3 am on April 5, 1994, Abigail Alling and Mark Van Thillo, members of the first crew, allegedly vandalized the project from outside,[25] opening one double-airlock door and three single door emergency exits, leaving them open for approximately fifteen minutes. Five panes of glass were also broken. About 10% of the biosphere’s air was exchanged with the outside during this time, according to Donella Meadows, who had a communication from Ms. Alling in which she explained that they wanted to give those inside the choice of continuing or leaving, as she didn’t know what they had been told of the new situation.[26]

    There was controversy when the public learned that the project had allowed an injured member to leave and return, carrying new material inside. The team claimed the only new supplies brought in were plastic bags, but others accused them of bringing food and other items. More criticism was raised when it was learned that, likewise, the project had been pumping oxygen inside, to make up for a failure in the balance of the system that resulted in the amount of oxygen steadily declining

    Daily fluctuation of carbon dioxide dynamics was typically 600 ppm because of the strong drawdown during sunlight hours by plant photosynthesis, followed by a similar rise during the nighttime when system respiration dominated. As expected, there was also a strong seasonal signature to CO2 levels, with wintertime levels as high as 4,000-4,500 ppm and summertime levels near 1,000 ppm. The crew worked to manage the CO2 by occasionally turning on a CO2 scrubber.

    here on earth, back in reality, we don’t have the option of ‘pumping oxygen inside’, nor do co2 levels ever fluctuate by even 60ppm daily, much less 600ppm. if you had convincing arguments, you wouldn’t need to resort to this kind of bs.

    but if you want to argue that these experiments are valid, then you also accept that humans, animals and plants can get along quite fine in an atmosphere containing 4,000ppm of co2.

  • JerseyCynic

    I feel like I’m in the middle of one of those complicated movies with a hard-to-follow plot. All of a sudden my “connect the dots app” just stopped functioning….. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-strange-history-of-steve-bannon-and-the-biosphere-2-experiment

    https://youtu.be/l_gkBPlLcfQ

    check out his partner, bernd zabel. who are these people?

  • Ditzkrieg

    Wow. This one post is all I needed to finally figure Eric Zuesse out. He is willing to place his 1,000% support into a belief system by bestowing upon it his stamp of “irrefutable science” and then use extreme hyperbole to convince himself of its rightness and of the apocalyptic implications that should make us afraid of not believing it as well. I’m actually disappointed, but hardly surprised.

  • which makes trump the preferred Zuesse candidate why/how exactly?

    • kimyo

      because we have no idea what trump will do.

      it’s perfectly logical. all sensible progressives support trump.

      • Army of Addicts

        But we do know that he is averse to nuclear winter.

  • It is no great shakes to ‘prove’ a trend continuing steadily will change things drastically. Is it not a good thing that our world does not operate that way ?
    You cannot ‘prove’ what the situation will be in a hundred years regardless. It has not happened. There is no data.

    • Nick Smegg

      Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. What’s there now will be there in 2095. There’s plenty of data from the past about carbon dioxide and global warming. Plenty of data too on what happens when environmental systems change at a fraction of the rate at which they are changing now. Take a look at the end-Permian Mass extinction.

      • Take a look at something a lot closer in time – and quite related to rate of change assessments. Non-Existent Relationship …CO2-Temperature Correlation Only 15% Of Last 165 Years – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/04/non-existent-relationship-co2-temperature-correlation-only-15-of-last-165-years/#sthash.vhAo7v5f.dpuf

        • Nick Smegg

          Short time periods cherry picked to confirm your bias. Temperatures are +1.25 C on 1880s levels, more like +1.45C for the change since industrialisation began. CO2 up from 270ppm in 1750 to 315ppm in 1958 and now it’s around 405ppm.

          • Endpoints are always subject to being derided as cherry picking. Nor do I see anywhere a guarantee that drift is abnormal – especially coming out of a mini ice age. In any case, it shows just how tough it is to isolate any pattern from effects of normal variation, which jumps around like a Mexican jumping bean daily. Throw in reports of ‘adjusting data’ and everything starts to look like trash.

  • Boothe

    Perhaps Mr. Zuesse should take a look at the wattsupwiththat website and educate himself a little better on the climate. He might want to make a special note that NOAA / NASA have ignored their own satellite and weather balloon data in favor of surface temperatures that are known to be less than reliable when it suited their agenda. Even the dyed in the wool true believers over at East Anglia called the cooling trend a “travesty” amongst themselves (you gotta love email leaks, huh Mr. Trenberth). It would also behove him to take a look at the work of Valentina Zharkova (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo) which shows we will most likely experience a 60% reduction in solar activity by the 2030’s. Do you have a good parka Mr. Zuesse?

    The whole “CO2 is a pollutant” Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling agenda is driven by the desire to tax and control (read that “farm”) the world’s population by the ruling elite. The use of “environmentalism” to push a global socialist agenda through fear has been well documented. What better way of subjugating the masses and redistributing the wealth than to tax everyone for breathing (excuse me, only for exhaling) all the while blatantly ignoring the cyclic thermal input from the sun. Does the climate change? Sure it does and has, even when our ancestors were eating raw meat hunkered down in caves. Is “climate change” anthropogenic? Highly unlikely. But you can’t tax and regulate the sun, now can you?

    • Army of Addicts

      You speak of socialism like the elites believe in it. The elites believe in nothing but themselves and their class. But if you want to see the boogy man as socialism, that’s just fine with them, in fact, they’ll love you for it.

      • Boothe

        No Army of Addicts I don’t see “socialism” or “environmentalism” as anything other than names for various tools used to farm the masses and enrich the elite. If they called their agenda “lollipopism” and that worked to further their interests, that’s what they’d do. I am painfully aware that the only thing the elite believe in is more power and money for themselves, extracted from the rest of us, through whatever methods of deceit, theft and control they can make work. Sadly a lot of our contemporaries do believe in the legitimacy of socialism, environmentalism, and too many other -isms to list. Until we figure out how to wake them up and make them see the truth, things wont’ change, will they?

        • Army of Addicts

          Hitler regretted calling it Socialism because that’s not what he was promoting.

    • Nick Smegg

      If you are at all unsure of the thermometers, just take a look at nature’s signposts . The Arctic sea ice is one quarter of its 1979 volume and it is melting right now even though it is dark and it is winter, when it normally refreezes. One thing that Biosphere II didn’t take into account was methane hydrates, frozen for millenia in the permafrost, melting and leaking into the atmosphere. A massive incursion of methane – many times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 – is good cause for saying the sky is falling.

      • Gotham Knight

        I guess the coastal flooding will begin soon. At least that’s what we’re told by our betters. By the way, the conditions in the Arctic are now nearly the same as when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed there in the early 1900s. Remember those explorers Scott and Shackleton? You might want to read some history of natural cycles. And no, the sky is not falling, but the parasite ruling class is worried about losing control, and that is something to be feared.

        • Nick Smegg

          The conditions in the Arctic are not the same as in 1900. You can’t mount a surface expedition to the North Pole because the sea ice is so thin. My source for this claim is Prof Peter Wadhams, who has been going up there for nigh-on fifty years. I suspect however, that with your reference to the Terra Nova, you are speaking of the Antarctic. Again, sea ice at a record low and the West Antarctic ice sheet is going to collapse no matter what, according to Eric Rignot. At this point, he says, reducing carbon emissions is wishful thinking. This pessimistic view is borne of the observation that the ice shelves, which stand in the sea, have been undermined by warmer waters. Unfortunately for us, the ice shelves act as butttresses to the ice sheet, and when West Antarctica goes, that’s an additional 3m-5m to sea level.

          • Gotham Knight

            Sorry, I meant Antarctic.

  • Gotham Knight

    To compare the earth’s climate, with all its incredible complexities and interdependencies, to the Biosphere, a relatively small enclosed space dependent on limited variables is absurd. It might as well be a spaceship, and you think that is a model for the entire planet?