It's time we have a serious (non-hysterical) talk about Climate Change. This is a response to @upmewhale's writing contest: Global Warming and Climate Change, What Can Be Done?
Since I have already covered the topic of Climate Change quite deeply in my 2-part series back in 2018 (part 1 & 2), and just last week shared my own journey from believing the propaganda to looking for the truth I'm going to give myself a different kind of challenge this time around.
My goal in this essay is to provide a bit of insight into as many facets of the Climate Change conversation as I can, while keeping each brief. I'll be focusing on giving a few key points/questions, with various reading/video sources for those who wish to dive deeper into any one topic.
Necessary for plant life (thus all life)... but the enemy?
The idea is that Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is the biggest problem on planet Earth. Just think about that for a moment. Something that is absolutely necessary for photosynthesis (how plants eat), and which every single human is by definition a creator of (you breathe out CO2), is considered the biggest problem to be eliminated. It seems like there's an agenda here, that has nothing at all to do with the environment.
Let's just take a real quick look at how more CO2 in the air affects plant growth:
We've also seen a lot of change in planetary CO2 levels over the past millennia, and those changes often seem to have no correlation with planetary temperatures. There is also quite a bit of evidence that the Earth has been suffering from a sort of carbon drought since before humans existed. According to the The Royal Society:
The decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the ‘carbon dioxide–starvation’ of terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than are C3 plants. - Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution
You'll also notice that every single graph tracking CO2 levels is intentionally designed to trick people into thinking there is a sharp, unheard of, increase. Look at this graph from NOAA, you'll see that they have structured it so that the starting point is in the very bottom left and the current is in the very top right... but look at the Y axis (up and down), and you'll notice that even a perfectly straight x=y line would only be showing an increase of less than 50 percent over the course of 10,000 years. You'll also notice that these folks will never show you global temperatures alongside those CO2 levels. (like this one) Ever seen what the Earth's CO2 levels look like historically? They look like this.
- Video: Carbon Dioxide "pollutant" DEBUNKED!
- Video: Carbon Eugenics
- Video: Conversation UPDATE: William Happer
- Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
- Cycles of Global Change (Parts 1 & 2)
- The Irrational War On Carbon: Toward The 2015 Climate Change Summit in Paris
But the Earth is warming, right?
The one thing that most folks in the mainstream conversation (using that term loosely, both "sides" simply repeat what the corporate media tells them) tend to agree on is that the Earth has been warming for the last century. Have you ever heard of the Little Ice Age? From the 1300s to around 1850, temperatures across the globe decreased, and the glaciers got bigger than they have been since the last Ice Age (known as the Pleistocene Epoch), which ended almost 12,000 years ago.
So, less than 200 years ago, we were in an ice age. That sure seems relevant when we're discussing any potential warming trends in the modern age doesn't it? Let's ignore this simple (and always overlooked) fact, and take a look at temperature change over just the last century, since that's what everyone focuses on.
There are some other big issues to handle when talking about whether or not the Earth is warming.
- How are we measuring the "global average temperature"? The Earth is a pretty big place, with thousands of different climates, elevations, etc. Are we talking about the temperature of the oceans? Thermosphere? Surface?
- What type of "average" are we talking about here? The mean, the mode, or the median?
- How are we accounting for Urban Heat Island Effect?
- How are we accounting for solar cycles, since we know they have a major heating effect?
- Do the key temperature sources (satellites & surface-air) show the same trend?
Unfortunately, not only are any of these questions actually addressed by the mainstream Climate Change conversation, because there is already a dogma to be pushed ("the Earth is warming, and humans are the primary cause"), so actually science goes out the window. As an example, look at the image below, which shows the measured temperatures from 1218 stations, compared to what was reported by the IPCC. If you start digging into this (the links below are a great starting point), you'll find that they regularly adjust historical temperature figures in order to show a heating trend.
- Video: What Is The Average Global Temperature?
- Video: Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change
- Video: Compendium of Randall Carlson on Climate
- New Satellite Data Still Shows Less Global Warming Than Climate Models
- Systematic Destruction Of The Temperature Record Since 2000
The 97% consensus, where does it come from?
When did science start searching for agreement instead of facts?
The standard go-to arguments for Climate Change rarely ever include statistics, historical evidence, or any kind of reproduce-able experiments. These arguments tend to involve nothing more than repeating claims from mainstream news headlines, and about the closest they ever get to actual science is with the claims that "The science is settled," or that there is a "97% consensus of climate scientists."
This idea of a 97% consensus is extremely faulty, in enough ways that I could easily write an essay just about this. However, for the moment, let's just look at the key components:
- Science is simply a method of testing hypotheses, gathering evidence, and reproducing the results of experiments. The idea of consensus is only valid in community decision-making, and has nothing to do with research or science. Remember, the "consensus" at various times included things like the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe, that heavier items fall faster than lighter ones, and that there is nothing smaller than the atom.
- Scientists who depend on funds, which are only granted to them when they show the results their supporters are looking for, have stopped doing science, and are simply in the business of propaganda. Since the IPCC gives billions of dollars a year to those who find evidence of anthropogenic Climate Change, it makes it clear that there is no money in questioning the status quo.
- Every single study/paper that presented the "97%" claim has been thoroughly debunked, and were done in bad faith, clearly for a specific goal. As the beginning of Cook et al., 2013 (the paper used as NASA's ONLY source for this claim) mentions right in the beginning of their own paper: "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"
Ask yourself, why is it that the claims of settled science, that everyone is already agreed, is basically the argument that is ever made by climate alarmists? Simple, because humans are social beings, and there is a lot of risk, a lot to lose, by going against "the majority" and things that "everybody knows." Every possible source for the 97% claim has been found to be a drastic misrepresentation of what their studies actually found, but if the media just keeps repeating that talking point, then people will keep buying it.
- Video: The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud
- Video: The Fake News 97% Consensus
- Why I Don’t “Believe” in “Science”
- About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
Maybe it's not 97%, but it's settled science right?
Do you remember ClimateGate?
Climategate was that moment, a decade ago, when the undeniable evidence that much of "Climate Science" had been a complete fraud, was released to the public thanks to a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act). Conveniently, folks who defend the idea of Climate Change generally seem to forget this ever happened.
The following is from the introduction of a report called The Climategate Emails, by John Costella, in which he presents (unedited & raw) some of the most important emails of the leaks. You can find the full leak (60 MB+ of emails) here on Wikileaks
Climategate began on 19 November 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution has played a central role in the “climate change” debate. Its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analysing and collating the various measurements of temperature from around the globe and that, going back for many years, collectively underpinned the central scientific argument that mankind’s liberation of “greenhouse” gases—particularly carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless, unprecedented and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.
An increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the “climate science” community was a façade—and that the vitriolic attacks upon the sensible arguments of mathematicians, statisticians, and indeed of scientists using plain common sense were not the product of scientific rigour at all, but merely attempts at self-protection at any cost. At this point the veil began to lift on what has arguably become one of the greatest scientific frauds in the history of mankind.
This is one of the darker periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is here, and cannot be avoided.
To this day, the idea that "the science is settled," that "most scientists" are in a consensus, and that consensuses are somehow important in science, have remained the official narrative, despite the fact that it couldn't be further from the truth. Sounds familiar huh? (See: Gulf of Tonkin, September 11th, Operation Northwoods, MK-Ultra, and so many others)
- Video: Marc Morano Debunks a Decade of Climategate Lies
- Video: Hide The Decline: A Climategate Backgrounder
- Over 440 Scientific Papers Published In 2019 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
- Climate Change and its Causes
- Full ClimateGate Email Leak
- Information Commissioner: Climategate Scientists Broke The Law
- Climategate is Still the Issue
So... If it's all a lie, why is everyone talking about it?
Now we're getting to the really important questions. Who benefits from the story of Climate Change, and why are so many celebrities and "science"-promoters repeating the same lies over and over? The second question is actually quite easy: celebrities & the like are quite dependent on the good will of politicians, bankers, and CEOs. If an actor/singer/athlete comes out against what they know to be a fraud (whether in the realm of Climate Change or any other), they will most assuredly lose their contracts, lose their place in the public eye, and quite often lose their life (R.I.P. Michael Jackson)
Remember Al Gore? He's the guy who stepped up the Climate Change scare in a BIG way, after decades of most people ignoring the attempts to create alarmism. Did you know Al's big business is "carbon credits," a carefully crafted scheme to make sure that the rich will remain completely unaffected by the regulations or crackdowns they are pushing on the masses. When Al was VP of the United States, his net worth was around $2 Million, he made roughly another $22 Million from his Inconvenient Truth, and is now worth more than $300 Million, thanks to climate alarmism. Did I mention he buys carbon credits (which supposedly cancel out carbon use, reducing one's "carbon footprint") from his own company? His house uses more electricity than 20 average American homes & he flies around the world all the world all the time, yet he claims to live a "carbon free" lifestyle.
Whether you want to look at Bill Nye (a bachelors in engineering who has multiple honorary PHDs), Michael Mann (the guy most largely implicated in ClimateGate), Climate Scientists trying to get a slice of the BILLIONS of dollars for results that point towards AGW, or any of the celebrities & politicians who will spend half their speeches ranting about the impending climate apocalypse, you'll notice a lot of money being made. You'll also notice a lot of personal jets, limousines, mansions, and invites to prestigious events.
What you won't see is anyone actually changing their lifestyles as though they are truly expecting some catastrophe, or acting like they believe that their actions are affecting the climate. I honestly think most of these people are just following the trend, following the money, and don't realize the agenda(s) for which they're being used as tools. This is especially true of all the high school & college students constantly pushing this narrative (looking at you Greta); how can you expect people who have been force-fed Climate Change propaganda their entire lives to believe anything else.
- Video: Why Would People Lie About Global Warming
- *And Now For The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle…
- Long List Of Warmist Organizations, Scientists Haul In Huge Money From BIG OIL And Heavy Industry!
- Democrat admits climate dogma loses to skeptics, asks YouTube to block them instead
- British climate alarmist recants his alarmism
If everyone's just repeating what they've been told...
The ones behind the curtain
"Scientists" are in it for the money. Politicians are in it for the money and power. Celebrities are in it for the money, the fame, and to not get suicided. But people don't create such massive, global-level, panic-inducing lies just to make a few bucks, right? There are a variety of people & organizations "behind" the Climate Change scam, certainly more than I have space for in this blog. It also seems important to have a good grasp on the (generally untold) history of the modern world, to even understand the scope of this plan.
I would suggest watching/listening to, in order:
- How Big Oil Conquered The World
- Why Big Oil Conquered The World
- Meet Maurice Strong
- Maurice Strong is Dead
- Patrick Wood Exposes the Technocrats’ Climate Eugenics Agenda
- Globalization is Dead. Long Live the New World Order!
So are you anti-environment then?
The environmental damage of humans is mostly from "government"
At this point in my writing, I'm starting to approach the size limit for a STEEM post, so I'm going to go a little more outline-like in my writing. If you read this post sharing my journey from believing the world was overpopulated and that the end was nigh, to seeing that the only large problem to worry about is the widespread acceptance of statism (and it's effects.)
With that said, there are certainly a TON of things that humans (generally small groups) are doing that negatively affect our environment, and thus our survivability as a species. Most of them have nothing to do with the average person; they are perpetrated by small groups of "powerful," "wealthy" psychopaths. I ask you to consider:
- The US Military-Industrial Complex is the world's biggest polluter.
- Many of the Marshall Islands are still unlivable after the US military tested 66 nuclear weapons on them.
- Navajo reservations' water supplies have been contaminated by abandoned uranium mines
- In 2016 the US Navy dumped 20,000 tonnes of "environmental "stressors," including heavy metals and explosives" into the Pacific Ocean.
- Use of depleted uranium in Iraq has led to desertification of 90% of its territory, and practically eliminated agriculture.
- Over 5 million have suffered health effects from the US military's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.
- The US, and other governments, have spent decades deliberately practicing what they call "geo-engineering," with things like Project Stormfury, Operation Popeye, HAARP:
- Geoengineering: The Real Climate Change Threat
- Yes, the US Government Has Experimented With Controlling Hurricanes
- Climate Engineering Is A Gateway To Global Government
- Harvard Engineers Plan New “Real World” Geoengineering Experiment
- New Study: Geoengineering Could Lead to Lower Crop Yields
- New Study Says Geoengineering the Climate Not a Solution to Climate Change
- Another Study Warns About Catastrophic Consequences of Implementing Geoengineering
What can be done?
- Stop paying taxes (they fund genocide, kidnapping, pollution, imperialism, eugenics, etc.)
- Change your diet
- Where is it coming from? (as local as possible, growing your own being the most local)
- What's in it? (Organic, Non-GMO, free of chemical pesticides)
- Reduce your interaction with the "consumer economy"
- Buy local, buy used, buy home-made
- Donate/resell your used belongings
- Repair & re-purpose as much as you can
- Stop taking in corporate media of any kind
- Begin practicing radical personal responsibility
- Your choices (every one of them) affect the rest of the world
- Violence & coercion are wrong, even/especially when someone with a "badge" or an "office" commit them
- The "majority" voting for something doesn't make it moral
- If someone is trying to convince you to be afraid, don't trust them. Chances are they are planning to take advantage of you somehow. (See my post on Problem-Reaction-Solution)