I feel pretty confident in saying that most
reasonably intelligent people have a rather difficult time buying into the
nonsensical ‘theory’ of ‘global warming”, “climate change”, “climate
disruption” or whatever it is that the true believers are calling it these
days. Most Americans are able to
recognize what is truly going on here by simply looking at who it is that’s
pushing this cockamamie theory which we’re told is based on exhaustive
scientific research, when in fact there is very little actual scientific proof
that supports it at all. While
supporters argue that it is now settled science that manmade “climate change”
is in fact taking place, it’s roughly 80 graphs from the 58 peer-reviewed scientific
papers published in 2017 that would seem to take exception to that claim.
Now before anyone comes unglued, I think we can all
agree that by “global warming” these papers are not making reference to the
mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced
since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice
Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and
skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they define “global warming” in the sense that it is most
commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and
scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed state-controlled media
environmental correspondents. “Global
warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made
phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the
Pacific islands disappear.
What all of these papers argue, in their different
ways, is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artifact. That is, all these different experts from
around the world, be it from China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, or
elsewhere, have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming
puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and came to the
conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no
evidence to support the global warming scare story. Late 20th century and early 21st century
global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor, for that
matter, scary. So I feel confident in
being able to ignore such climate change alarmists as Al Gore and John
Kerry-Heinz.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist
science establishment would have us believe that climate skepticism is a
minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who
don’t do the science. But this is just
pure propaganda. There are dozens of
reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating
on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the
increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a
thing. Not that it ever was a thing,
really. This debate was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious
hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.” Still, it’s always a comfort to know that
“the science” is on our side as well. And
how the Greenies must hate that.
In an attempt to point out just how dishonest those
on the left can be let's all take a brief trip down memory lane and recall some
of the other great lies that those on the left have been telling for
decades. For instance, do you recall how
it was that Rachel Carson, courtesy of her fictional ‘masterpiece’, Silent
Spring, got DDT banned? The result
being, of course, that millions of people died worldwide but we saved the
mosquito. Or how Ralph Nader got the
Corvair banned because of gas tank hysteria?
And there was Jimmy Carter, remember him, he told us back in 1978 that
the world would run out of oil by 1980.
Jimmy was, and remains to this day, a complete moron. And it was Carl Sagan who once said that Saddam's
oil well fires in Kuwait would usher in an ice age, not global warming.
Then came the global warming and ‘climate change’
hysteria after which not one major hurricane has hit the U.S. in over 10 years,
the longest stretch since records began being kept. So when it became a bit more difficult to
sell the notion of ‘global warming’, the nomenclature was changed to ‘climate
change’, on a planet where the climate has been changing for millions of
years. So, yeah, they’re liars, and
anyone who assigns any amount of credibility to these folks (say like the
idiotic Supreme Court Justice Kennedy when he deemed CO2 a pollutant) is a
fool. Trees and all other foliage LOVE
CO2. They eat it and emit oxygen.
Extrapolate from there and you'll know what the solution is!! We already have made HUGE strides in reducing
pollution. Just look at the pollution
map at the World Health Org.
‘Climate change’ has become a religion. It's now "cool and intelligent" to
be self-righteously angry at your own country, industry, people, etc. Just don't ask any ONE of these climate zealots
to stop using any of the 6,000 items that are petroleum based because they'd
have to start with their cellphones. Or
ask them to fly with the little people where they’d be packed in like sardines
and have to be subjected to the TSA perverts instead of flying on their private
jets. You see, the only people who are
called upon to make the ‘necessary’ sacrifices for the benefit of all are those
of us who comprise that group looked upon as being the unwashed masses. We’re far too unsophisticated, and therefore
nowhere near deserving of those privileges enjoyed by society’s elites, so the
brunt of the burden falls upon us.
Look, I have no problem with valid research that
follows the scientific process. I do have a problem with spending trillions of
dollars on an ‘alleged’ problem based on an anomaly that no one has actually
proven even exists. I have a problem
with tax hungry politicians who have zero acumen in any science getting
involved with the research. I have a problem with totalitarians using
fictitious world-ending scenarios to scare the masses into compliance with
their agenda. I have a problem with people pretending that an alleged "consensus"
has any place in the scientific method. And, I have a problem when research
shows the base premise of the theory under study shows the theory itself to be
completely flawed; and yet, the researchers continue on their merry way and
soak up tax dollars anyway.
Totalitarians have been busy trying to scare the
masses since before the dawn of history.
It's what they do. They only do
it on a larger, faster and more efficient scale now. And in an effort to coerce those of us who
are non-believers into keeping silent that we are often times referred to as
being the dreaded ‘deniers’ of ‘climate change’ and as such we are to be
forever shunned. As if that really
matters to any of us who refuse to be fooled into believing such nonsense. Personally, I wear that moniker as a badge of
honor just as I do when lumped in with those who are called ‘Flat Earthers’ for
no other reason than they are able to understand what is really going on
here. And I know that I am far from
being the only one proud to be looked down upon by these ‘climate change’
loons.
Because it was a recent Rasmussen Poll that showed
41 percent of Americans agree with
President Trump’s decision to withdraw the
U.S. from the Paris climate change agreement, because sticking with the deal
would increase energy costs. Most
Americans don’t want to pay much, if anything, to fight “global warming.” Rasmussen wrote about its poll: “President
Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris anti-global warming agreement
last week in part because of his concern about its potential impact on the U.S.
economy.” And it was of the 41 percent
who said the deal would increase energy costs for Americans that Rasmussen
said, “Voters tend to agree the accord would have led to increased energy
costs, and most remain unwilling to pay much, if anything, more to fight global
warming.”
Rasmussen reported, “Just 20% believe the
requirement would decrease the cost of energy, while 23% say it would have no
impact,” and noted that 16 percent of poll takers were not sure. Not sure?
In another Rasmussen poll, the majority of respondents, or 60 percent,
said Congress should vote on any such agreement. It was ex-president Barry Obummer who signed
the Paris “executive agreement” in 2015 without the consent of Congress. And those who were paying attention during
the last presidential election are aware Hitlery made it quite clear that she
too was a devout follower of the ‘climate change’ religion, to the point where
she fully intended on putting coal mining companies and therefore coal miners
out of business. Maybe that too can be
blamed on the Russians. Ya think?
No comments:
Post a Comment