Written by Kathleen Marquardt, an associate of Tom DeWeese
In an August 2022, National Library of Medicine article “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist, How Philosophy of Science Can Help Explain Why Science Deserves Primacy in Dealing with Societal Problems” by Stefaan Blancke and Maarten Boudry  starts out:
“Modern democratic societies tend to appeal to the authority of science when dealing with important challenges and solving their problems. Nevertheless, distrust in science remains widespread among the public, and, as a result, scientific voices are often ignored or discarded in favour of other perspectives. Though superficially “democratic”, such a demotion of science in fact hinders democratic societies in effectively tackling their problems. Worryingly, some philosophers have provided ammunition to this distrust and scepticism of science. They either portray science as an institution that has unrightfully seized political power, or they claim that science constitutes only one voice among many and that scientists should know their proper place in our societies. As philosophers of science, we believe that it is potentially dangerous to undermine trust in science in this way. Instead, we believe that philosophers should help people to understand why science, even though it is far from perfect, deserves our trust and its special standing in modern societies.” (emphasis mine). 
The article goes on: “Potentially dangerous to undermine trust in science in this way”? We older people were taught to think, to question everything, especially in science; that was how we “would eventually” arrive at the correct conclusions. And that is what scientists used to believe. Today, as this article goes on to tell us, we just need to listen to the politically correct sources.
As the authors tell us it is “demonstrated by means of numerous empirical studies that humans are far from the ideal of rational actors who, when making a judgement or decision, calculate probabilities and objectively weigh the pros and cons of each option.”  That is true today of those ‘graduating’ from our universities where they have been deliberately dumbed down.
Here is a good example of the programming of those in the seats of ‘higher learning’:
“When faced with severe problems and challenges such as climate change and the COVID pandemic, modern societies often rely on the authority of science, both to diagnose the problem and to find solutions, on the assumption that science provide us with the most reliable picture of the world. And indeed, this expectation has not been disappointing, since science has been quite successful in helping us overcome many societal and global challenges. Think, for instance, of the incredibly rapid development of vaccines against COVID or the diagnosis and consequent solution for the growing hole in our ozone layer.”  Yes, think about those two things! And their sources.
Under “The Goal of Science Education” they write, “By giving them a flavour of how biases and intuitions have distorted our reasoning in the past, students will learn to appreciate that intuitions and appeals to “common sense” are extremely unreliable when it comes to understanding anything about the world outside of the ecological environment our minds are adapted to. If people realize that, for instance, we tend to interpret the world in “essentialist” terms, and such intuitive essentialism can lead us seriously astray (e.g. race pseudoscience, creationism), this might make them a bit more sceptical about their own “common sense” and about the way they usually obtain information about the world.” (Blancke et al., 2018) 
“Santiago, Chile – Today, the Global Methane Hub announced that agriculture and environment ministers and ambassadors from 13 countries, including the United States, have issued a commitment to reduce methane emissions in agriculture. Last month, the Global Methane Hub collaborated with the Ministries of Agriculture of Chile and Spain to convene the first-ever global ministerial on agricultural practices to reduce methane emissions.” 
We all are aware that CO2 is the GE’s boogeyman to ban oil and gas usage worldwide, but now we are hearing that methane (produced by fracking, cows and other ruminants, termites, and others), is almost equally as evil. But, as William Happer, PhD tells us: “…even if regulations on U.S. methane emissions could completely stop the increase of atmospheric methane (they can’t), they would likely only lower the average global temperature in the year 2222 by about 0.2°C. This is a completely trivial amount given that humans have adapted to a much larger change over the past century while reducing climate deaths by over 98%. And U.S. regulations will have little influence on global emissions, where producers are unlikely to be as easily cowed.” 
Methane “…degrades in the atmosphere relatively quickly—it has a half-life of about 10 years—whereas CO2 is cumulative; that is to say a single emission of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years, and a series of them will accumulate….”  Thus they are talking apples and orangutans here.
Yet, some of the world’s largest producers of meat signed on to this commitment – US, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia. Why? The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization many in the beef industry trusted to represent them, climbed into bed with the World Wildlife Fund, a UN non-government organization (NGO), a leader of UN Environmental Program (UNEP). NCBA says they just want a seat at the table, but we all know what happens when you sit down with the devil. Even Friends of the Earth, a radical environmental group, and 50 other environmental organizations said in a letter “on June 27,2018, ‘This USRSB includes over 100 members from the retail, civil society, producer, processor and allied industry sector who are falsely portraying themselves as promoting a ‘US beef value chain’ that is ‘environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable.’ Key USRSB leaders include JBS (the world’s largest beef processor) McDonald’s, Arby’s Merck and Elanco; the very same companies that for years have opposed or undermined numerous policies that would bring us closer to sustainability in the bee sector. Nature Conservancy is also part of the Executive team and WWF is a founding member.
“The groups are especially concerned that member retailers and restaurants like Walmart, Costco, McDonald’, Darden, Arby’s Culver’s and Wendy’s will use the framework’s meager and misguided metrics as a basis for ‘sustainable’ beef claims – as McDonald’ did last year — thereby undercutting truly sustainable, organic and/or regenerative beef producers.” 
The 15-minute (in some places 20 minute) city is the hot new issue to attack climate change. It is neither hot nor new. Well, maybe hot – from the heat gathered in the city heatsink, but certainly not a place that any global elite will live in.
And it is not new. It comes straight out of The Ideal Communist City, ˆby Alexi Gutnov written for East Germany after the USSR took it over. “The chaotic growth of cites will be replaced by a dynamic system of urban settlement. This system will evolve out of an integrated and self-sufficient nucleus: the NUC (now the 15-minute city). The goal is to transform the whole planet into a unified sociological environment.” 
The region is formed by the economic interdependence of its development… The region has a single system of transportation, a centralized administration, and a united system of education and research.” 
That was written in the late 1950s and translated from the Italian printing in 1968. Now let’s look at the 15-Minute City. Having written a number of articles about them, The Expose describes some of the first cities to be called 15-Minute Cities which are in Great Britain. “Designed after a system used in the Belgian city of Ghent, the proposal is part of the council’s revised draft Local Plan. In the five zones, major roads will be closed, forcing drivers to ditch their cars or use the bypass. ANPR cameras will be at the entry and exit points of each zone so drivers can’t move between neighbourhoods.
“The amenities and services that you would need are all in your neighbourhood. You wouldn’t have all the rat running, so it’d be fantastic if we could achieve it.”
“In 20 years’ time, you’re likely going to have your groceries delivered or you’re planning to go to a different supermarket or a new local shop in your own neighbourhood.” 
What is a 15-Minute City? According to The Urbanist, “a 15-minute city aims to provide everything you need within a short 15-minute walk or bike: jobs, schools, food, parks, community, medical and more. Building on the principles of New Urbanism and popularized by Parisian Mayor Anne Hidalgo this urban design concept may be a solution to create more sustainable, equitable, and healthier cities.” Straight out of The Ideal Communist City.
And the U.S., being one of the top dogs of the Global Elite isn’t about to be left behind. Cities are vying to become the first. To qualify they must score high in:
- walkability and bikability;
- Labor force participation;
- Number of social associations;
- Food environment index (determines level of access to healthy foods);
- Access to exercise opportunity;
- Density of health and safety providers (hospitals, emergency medical services, mental health providers, primary care physicians, nursing homes, fire stations, and local law enforcement);
- Severe housing problem index (measures overcrowding and properties in urgent need of repair); and
- Housing to income ratio.
Cities in the running are:
Chicago and 12 more.
And, of course, our federal government is going whole-hog:
The Biden administration has been active in addressing this issue (net-zero), both in terms of decarbonizing federal buildings and encouraging states and cities to take action. Last year, it signed an executive order directing the federal government to use its powers to achieve net-zero emissions throughout its entire building portfolio by 2045, including a 50% emissions reduction by 2032. 
The Climate Smart Buildings Initiative “is an integral part of the President’s Federal Sustainability Plan, which aims to reduce emissions from Federal buildings by 50 percent by 2032 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2045. These actions build on the Administration’s efforts to improve the Nation’s building energy and climate performance by updating energy codes for Federal buildings, building better school infrastructure, spurring ambition among major U.S. companies and health sector leaders through commitments to slash buildings emissions by 50 percent by 2030, and launching of the first-ever Building Performance Standards Coalition of more than 35 states and cities.” 
This is not new; the 1960s American Institute of Planners “makes no bones about its socialist stance regarding land; its constitution states AIP’s ‘particular sphere of activity shall be the planning of the unified development of urban communities and their environs and of states, regions, and the nation as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the regulation thereof. . . .The present-day crew of planners, drawing no line between public and private property, believe that land-use control should be vested in government and that public planners should have sole right to control the use of all land.” 
Backers of these urban hubs are gung-ho. C40 Knowledge Hub wrote a piece on “How a pandemic can help us build back green,”  that “In a ‘15-minute city’, everyone is able to meet most, if not all, of their needs within a short walk or bike ride from their home. It is a city composed of lived-in, people-friendly, ‘complete’ and connected neighbourhoods. It means reconnecting people with their local areas and decentralising city life and services. As cities work towards COVID-19 recovery, the 15-minute city is more relevant than ever as an organising principle for urban development. It will help cities to revive urban life safely and sustainably in the wake of COVID-19 and offers a positive future vision that mayors can share and build with their constituents. More specifically, it will help to reduce unnecessary travel across cities, provide more public space, inject life into local high streets, strengthen a sense of community, promote health and wellbeing, boost resilience to health and climate shocks, and improve cities’ sustainability and liveability.”
What it’s all about – Climate Change
Author Ted Trainer in Transition to a Sustainable and Just World spells it out. “Simply shutting down the economy is not going to get us to our goal. So, just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change… This crosses many areas, transportation, industry, electricity, all those things, and agriculture – contribute to emissions…” 
And there you have it. It’s all about a non-existent threat to humanity that is dressed up as the “end of the world as we know it“ – if we don’t bow to the globalists seeking one world government under the guise of saving humanity from boiling heat.
We should be welcoming more carbon dioxide, it is good for people, animals, plants, and the planet.
 Baburov, Gutnov, et al. The Ideal Communist City, (facsimile from the I press series on human environment. P.101
 Ibid. 105
 Jo Hindman, Blame Metro, p.116.
Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She is dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the radical environmental and animal rights movements. She has been featured in national publications including Fortune, People, the Washington Post, and Field and Stream, as well as television news programs such as Hard Copy, The McLaughlin Group, Geraldo, and many others. Today, she serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.
Phone: (540) 341-8911
email@example.com© Tom DeWeese
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.