My Perspective on Climate Change and Global Warming
I think it's accurate to say that people are getting programmed en masse (rightly or wrongly) to believe that carbon emissions resulting from human activity are the number one cause of climate change. Before it was colloquially known as climate change, everyone called it global warming, but this shifted rapidly, and we'll get more into that a little later on.
Many of the high-profile people involved in spreading the anthropogenic (or human-caused) global warming hypothesis have ties to companies that sell carbon credits to industry. Corporations who purchase these carbon offsets desire to publicly virtue-signal their level of greenness to rabidly conscientious consumers. Yes, you know the type, people who are hell-bent on "saving the planet" no matter what the costs, benefits, and with virtually no analysis.
These good-hearted and well-meaning folks would watch a two-hour documentary by the likes of Al Gore and having suddenly become climate experts overnight, would run around like Chicken Little with vitriolic claims, and overt grandstanding, that the sky is falling. If you didn't believe what they said, you were "literally" Hitler, a Nazi, or a fascist who wanted nothing more than to watch the world burn.
Let's get back to the shift in language for a moment; The reason the agenda had re-branded was because of the CRU hack of 2009. Diligent hackers, and perhaps insiders as well, exposed the Climatic Research Unit's fraudulent activity. Michael Mann and the efforts of his colleagues to "hide the decline" in temperature data proved to be one of the most notorious revelations in the leak and thus led to the move to embrace the term "climate change." This PR technique was, no doubt, a skillful method by which to skirt pesky arguments about the latest trends in cooling.
Thanks to the CRU hack, Global Warming became an assailable concept. However, nobody can dispute "climate change." I mean, that'd be like denying the fact that weather exists, and to do so would be the height of foolishness. Many against the taxation agenda were not perceptive enough to comprehend the extraordinarily clever alteration in the phraseology.
So, when people used climate change in place of global warming, instead of giving them the proper static they deserved, we just said, "we know what you mean," and gave them a pass. This led to simplified concepts such as "climate deniers," which I can only imagine are people who don't believe in the weather. I mean, it's a truly stupid combination of words. The best kind of propaganda is always the most simple, e.g., "they hate us because of our freedom," or "they think weather doesn't even real."
Let's move away from history and into the obvious. I'm sure you can tell by my biases and the style of writing in this post that I don't buy into the idea that human activity is the leading cause of climate change. I'm not a denier of anthropogenic global warming, and I'm sure we humans have some small effect on our planet's overall temperature. However, I also think humanity's hubris and desire to control all of the things is insatiable.
The climate data in use today goes back 140 years ago to the 1880s, and the reason we only go back this far is that the data is far less reliable the further back you go. I think it has something to do with the frequency and areas wherein the numbers were recorded. The more readings you get from various locations worldwide, the more accurate the models.
It's what you're supposed to believe anyhow—Perhaps they don't want to invoke musings about the extreme cold we faced during the ice ages or the uncomfortably hot weather from medieval times. The latter took place before the industrial revolution, so man's CO2 isn't to blame for it. We are hinging all of our assessments on a tiny fraction in time, the idea we've got a grasp on "what normal is" with regards to the weather is ridiculous.
The self-important notion that earth is here to accommodate humanity, or just because we've had somewhat stable temperatures for the last century, is no sign of what the future holds. There were many extinction level events in the past, and more are to follow in the eons to come. Nature is brutal and unforgiving. Any attempt to adjust the earth's thermostat is a bill of goods sold by men who either want to weaponize the weather or capitalize on your ignorance. You've got to read between the lines and the headlies. I'll leave you with one parting video to get you on your way.
So, the same category of folks who’d suggest that chemtrails are just a nasty conspiracy theory touted by kooks and nutbags have proposed that we deploy stratospheric aerosol injection of chemicals (or chemtrails) into the skies to “potentially” curb global warming.
The program will only cost ten billion dollars a year, and won’t accomplish jack diddly squat on its own (because they’re still planning on hocking carbon credits for private gain). However, it might allow the U.S. to fiddle with regional weather much to the ire of the nation-states who get the raw end of the stick as the U.S. plays at being God. You can’t make this stuff up!
Before Global Warming, like about the time of Nixon and Ford, it was global Ice Age cometh forth rapidly.
The thing people should look at is the amount of O2, oxygen, in the air. This has been on the decrease for the last 800,000 years or so from what I could find, Is the decrease increasing in speed? Does de-forestation add to the decrease? Are vegan responsible because of all the land clearing in the past 150 years for food crops?
I mean really we need to bring forth more FUD. We need new people to blame in the blame game. We need to keep the wheels of commerce rolling. Oh the Vegans can blame it all on the ranchers for letting their cows, pigs, goats, horses eat all the grasses thus removing more carbon fixing and oxygen production from the cycle.
No one acre of corn does not fix as much carbon as one acre of trees, nor does it produce more oxygen than an acre of trees.
At the end of the day we need more FUD to take eyes away from the real problems of society.
It is relevant to your thesis that O2 is made from CO2. Therefore in order to have more O2, we need to provide more CO2, it's precursor.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas, @bashadow. As you point out, the blame game can work in more ways than one! I.e., if someone wants industry to produce less carbon, does it mean they hate trees? The flora and fauna breathe our collective carbon output, and if we can reduce carbon to untold lows, there will be a lot less of this life-giving element for our green food to thrive off of.
Upvoted by @aagabriel for having similarities to the #informationwar tag, posts like this anyone can add the tag #informationwar so we can more easily find and upvote them! (by @aagabriel)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Goods post Buddy!
Thank you, Rich! Did you hear about upmewhale's contest? I hope you can find time to enter so you can share your ideas on the topic with everyone! There are a few small rules in the post like leading with a specific tag and whatnot, but I think you'd be a shoo-in for the win! As far as information warriors are concerned, Kenny has also submitted an excellent entry. The more IW folk who participate, the better!
I think I will... I bookmarked the contest post. I got involved in a deep dive on John Roberts. Now that's done I have time.
Sweet!
Done (and I didn't even quote any of my previous posts)
Very nice!
Well, it's dome for what it's worth!
I second your words. All this is just another clever plan to control and profit.
Thanks, and I yours!
Great piece @thoughts-in-time! Don't forget to put a comment over on the upmewhale post so they see this for sure :-)
Thank you, Kenny!
Pretty rational position overall. I reckon you might have made more of the proof that the AGW claims are based on falsified research, which you mention. Once you prove they're liars, no one should believe any damn thing they say. That's how it works in courts of law when dealing with perjury, for very good reasons.
Thanks!
Thanks, I try to stick with logic and reason first. The emails from the CRU hack are proof enough to me that their research is presented in such a way as to promote the agenda of whoever pays them. As you say, after the incident, it was unwise for anyone to take them at their word. I know anthropogenic global warming is real, but I also drink dihydrogen monoxide daily, and for whatever reason, it hasn’t killed me yet.
Here we disagree. I have had a look at the fossil record, and have noted that one good volcanic event produces orders of magnitude more CO2 than humanity ever will. Not just more than we have, or are projected to produce in the foreseeable future, but more than we ever possibly will. Given that demonstrable fact, the impact of our CO2 releases so far cannot possibly have substantially altered Earth's climate from it's natural trajectory.
The Siberian Traps added 170,000 Billion tons of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere. Humanity will never, ever in a million years do that. We're just not that suicidal, even if we become capable of that level of industrial production using CO2 emitting processes. 80% of the volcanoes on Earth today remain unknown to science, because they're under the ocean. We really don't know how much CO2 they are producing. We don't even know where they are.
The dire certainty AGW shills claim is utter bollocks. It's based on lies, paid for by banksters using propaganda to promote political means to aggrandize themselves. The carbon credit mechanism that has been proposed to solve industrial CO2 emission is trivially able to completely privatize Earth's carbon by extant corporations with nominal financial means, and I believe this is the reason for the AGW alarmist shilling.
We're carbon based. All life is. Capturing the basis of life itself by private interests is a prize beyond mere financial value, and psychopaths intent on aggrandizing themselves no matter what price others pay are doing everything they can to get it.
I meant that humans have an impact, and I’m certain it’s negligible compared to natural events like you mentioned. Just like you cannot deny climate change (weather happens) you can’t deny anthropogenic global warming (people have an effect), it’s just not anywhere near the hyperbole that the interested powers are pushing. It might not even be a single degree on the Fahrenheit scale. Therefore, it’s important to do a cost-benefit analysis if they want us to sacrifice humanity in the name of Gaia. If we did everything they wanted and crippled industry just to save a couple degrees (and that’s very generous on my part), then humans would go extinct. Also, cross-referencing degrees saved vs. degrees lost because of natural events would expose the con for the tomfoolery that it is.
We're almost completely in agreement, and I reckon it's because we are seeking to rationally understand the issue, which leads to examining the actual evidence.
One thing I am concerned about is that the propaganda is causing folks to attempt geoengineering to reduce warming, and the best understanding of real climate data suggests we are overdue for significant cooling and a return to ice age conditions.
In the event such geoengineering is successful, and that cooling trend is imminent, extreme harm could result.
One very simply metric that indicates we are naturally headed for cooler conditions is the fluctuation of sea level over the last 250kya. During that period sea level has risen and fallen ~100 meters five times. We are presently at peak sea level. What has happened five times in a row is that sea level has quickly fallen from this level, meaning that global temperatures rapidly cooled and froze a lot of water into glaciers.
Given that I am confident those natural processes continue, and that our impact is presently relatively negligible, I expect that process to happen again. If we manage to deliberately increase the cooling over the natural reduction, the impact of the climate change geologically imminent will be more dramatic, and this will result in more severe impacts on civilization, society, and human survival.
We've enjoyed an extended interglacial for the last few thousand years, which has certainly contributed to our advancing civilization. When cooling has happened due to natural processes during that advance, empires have crumbled, and humanity suffered catastrophic loss of life. No one that cares about people wants to make that worse.
It's the primary reason I care about the climate propaganda issue at all. The disinformation has potential to induce genocidal loss of life in the event normal climactic processes continue, which is very likely IMHO. This makes it very important to dispel the disinformation, because doing so will save millions, perhaps billions, of lives of good people.