Intentions always have inadvertent consequences, whether good or bad. Intent based on love or the well-being of the recipient often requires sacrifice on the part of the initiator. Bad intentions, however, tend to focus solely on the target and aim for predictable behavior change. Hence, the climate change hoax.
A familiar theme among bad intentions is the end result: power and control. The methods for achieving this may involve force, but this comes at the expense of mounting resistance from the objective population. Ideology and propaganda are much more subtle, palatable, and innocuous—after all, a successful campaign will induce your subjects to want what you want for the reasons you want them to. They’ll not only fight for your cause but sincerely believe in the cause as well. Having affection for servitude means feeling contempt for sovereignty.
The earlier this evil agenda goes into action, the better—before anyone knows it, the programmed doctrine will become so customary and ubiquitous to suggest otherwise would be considered heresy.
Knowledge equals power, and education equals freedom. It naturally follows, then, that the inverse of either equation is also valid. Consequently, miseducation equals slavery.
Let’s start with an example: learning. Any malevolent force that shapes education can truly produce some damaging results. I am no expert in our school system, but many educators have been ringing the alarms about the nationalization and standardization in our country’s schools (i.e., the Common Core). With a countrywide system, the powers that be can mandate and control means as a way to control ends. When the means are influenced by federal money (the more you follow our rules, the more you get), I wonder what the desired end is when perverse intent starts the process. A good launching pad for more information on the Common Core can be found here.
Here’s another example: climate change. The popular hypothesis is that humans make way too much carbon dioxide (CO2), and this subsequently causes a rise in global temperature and, thus, changes in our weather. The dangerous leap is that since we (terrible humans) do so many things that increase emissions (CO2), we are the ones that must undertake drastic behavior change (e.g., mandated recycling, carbon taxes, low-emission vehicles, industry-mandated emission standards, cap and trade, smart meters), even if it is to our own detriment, for the good of the environment.
Consider this verbatim statement from the Rio Earth Summit’s infamous Agenda 21: “Consideration should also be given to the present concepts of economic growth and the need for new concepts of wealth and prosperity … Achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” In plain English, this says, “Things that make you happy are bad. Live a more miserable life so the earth can be happy.”
Certainly, I don’t doubt that human activity can have deleterious effects on the environment (e.g., dumping oil or radioactive waste into the ocean), but I also don’t believe that human activity is the only cause for climate change. I also don’t doubt that the modern world churns out tons and tons of more CO2 day after day, but I am hesitant to concede that CO2 is the causal agent making changes in the climate. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is real, legitimate science, but for the world to heat up by 1°C (an allegedly dangerous thing), the amount of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 must double. The thing is, the earth’s temperature has cyclically gone up more than 1°C in the past only for temperatures to naturally come back down (Google the Medieval Warm Period). Even if someone bumped the world’s thermostat up two degrees now, the increase by no means pushes the earth’s temperature higher than ever before in recorded history, let alone prehistoric times. In those eras, humankind did not boil, the planet didn’t explode, and the continents were not drowned in water.
Fact: in approximately the past 160 years, there has only been about a one-degree increase in global temperature. About 90% of this rise happened before 1940, and since the late 1990s, there has been no noted rise in global temperatures.
Fact: CO2 makes up 0.038% of all gases in the atmosphere. Since the middle of the 1800s, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 35%.
Michael Crichton eloquently described it best when he compared the amount of gases in the atmosphere to a football field. First, imagine a normal 100-yard field. Next, from one end zone, walk all the way down to the other side’s one-yard line. This walk represents the proportion (99%) of the two main gases in the earth’s atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen). In the final yard, use a ruler, and carefully creep down to the one-inch line. This remaining one-inch space represents the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of that one inch, a space the width of the skinny side of a quarter represents the total amount of CO2 that humans have contributed since the beginning of time. If that seems like a fantastically small and insignificant amount, then you’re imagining correctly. Hmmm …
First, CO2 is not a pollutant but a gas that has existed in the atmosphere for billions of years. The human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is negligible relative to the total amount of gases in the environment.
Guess where the largest reserves of CO2 exist on planet earth? Together, all of the planet’s bodies of water. I wonder if we should ban oceans.
Know what happens when a volcano explodes? Massive amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the air. I wonder if we should tax all volcanoes for not being “green.”
Second, the entire basis of the climate change argument—that earth’s temperature will rise a few degrees—in the end amounts to very little.
CO2 isn’t a bad thing. It fuels mostly all plant life on planet earth (photosynthesis) and acts as a fertilizer for a myriad of food sources. Do you know what you get if you plant a dozen trees on Earth Day and give them more CO2? A forest more robust than if you didn’t. Thinking green really means thinking CO2.
Skepticism consumes me because if one totally and completely submits to the notion that it’s “all our fault” the inevitable result is coercive behavior change for you and me. And it’s far more profitable for governments and businesses to “go green” than to maintain the status quo.
Case in point: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), or the body that delivers the verdict on the state of man-made global warming, recently released their fifth assessment report. In it, the real rise in global temperatures has been so modest the data have fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s predictions from computer models. In fact, the average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last decade or so. How could this happen given that our CO2 emissions have gone up?
Astute scientists would respond by saying it is expected from time to time, and the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years—besides, 12 of the 14 hottest years ever recorded happened between 2000 and today.
Has anyone ever scrutinized the machines taking the earth’s temperature? After all, these are the golden oracles that record the startling and ominous data about the rise in temperatures. Watts et al. conducted a study on the temperature recording stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. They looked at about 80% of the stations and found that more than 70% of them had margins of error greater than 2°C; the rest had error margins of one degree or more.
Climate change amounts to less than a two-degree (Celsius) rise in the global temperature over the next two centuries. Hmmm …
But don’t take my word for it. Read the testimonial of a scientist, Dr. David Evans, who actively worked for the climate change machine (Australia’s Department of Climate Change) for more than a decade only to defect when he became aware of the bunk science.
For more, click here for a one-page dismantling of the current “science” behind climate change by Dr. Howard Hayden. I’ve never read a more succinct and persuasive disproof yet.
As with anything else, it behooves everyone not simply to accept one doctrine or the other but to investigate the issue from all angles. I think any rational mind not consumed with intransigence will have to at least consider the multitude of hard facts that directly contradict the church of climate change and its alleged disastrous results.
For the more curious minds out there, I would highly recommend Eco-Tyranny by Brian Sussman.
Keep the behavior changes on your own terms.
Dr. C. H. E. Sadaphal