This is a cautionary tale, about the distortion of an entire area of scientific study. This is how, with skillful semantics, the media sorcerers developed a political campaign into a bureaucratic bandwagon. Now, bombarded with daily dosages of propaganda, broadcast through television, newspapers, and magazines, many never think to question the fundamental philosophical and scientific assumptions proffered by those promoting the climate change agenda.
As one shall immediately observe, there is indeed much to question.
Throughout human history, climate has always changed.
Public figures trumpeting the climate change agenda however, want one to believe ‘climate change’ is anthtropogenic. It is now assumed, because of man’s exponential levels of carbon emissions, a climate apocalypse will soon befall the globe. Contrary to this dubious claim, however, is the fact climate change is not driven by human industrial activity and subsequent carbon emissions.
Rather, it is driven by the activities of the sun.
But, within the scientific community, and the public at large, it has become increasingly politically incorrect to suggest anything other than the standardized climate change orthodoxy.
To those most faithful adherents, nothing other than mankind and industrial growth is the culprit for changes in global climate. From any objective standpoint, with regard to the ‘climate change’ agenda, it is clear political perceptions have triumphed over scientific realities.
From even cursory observation, it is clear the climate change movement has transformed from scientific consensus, to political protest movement, and lately, to quasi-religious cult.
According to the accepted climate change dogma, mankind’s industrial revolution is leading the globe into the certain throes of climate disaster.
Thanks to the modern conveniences developed during the industrial era of the early twentieth century, luxuries once only available to the rich, have become abundantly available to almost everyone. Novel technologies, have made life easier and richer. Modern communications and transport, have made the world seem less foreign and distant.
The question remains, have these developments had any significant, if any, impact upon the world’s changing climate?
Turns out, the main tenet upholding the climate change agenda, that humans are the main source of carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere, is at odds with established scientific data, compiled over a period of several decades. However, if one were to listen to the shrill bleating of climate change zealots, they regard CO2, or carbon dioxide, as an industrial pollutant.
This is a fallacy.
Carbon dioxide is a major building block of life, produced by all living things.
One often hears the zealous mantra, that mankind must ‘reduce it’s carbon footprint’. This, is chiefly predicated on the idea of post-war climate statistics, demonstrating the earths climate has warmed, due to the exponential increase of industrial activity.
In fact, most of the earths temperature rise occurred before 1940, and has precipitously dropped going forward into the 21st century.
Contrary to climate change consensus, mankind’s overall carbon dioxide production levels are minute, comparative to other natural sources. Bacteria, animals and vegetation are responsible for over one-hundred fifty gigatons of annual carbon dioxide production, as opposed to less than six and one half gigatons representing the globes total annual industrial output.
In fact, volcanoes and the earths oceans are responsible for a much larger percentage of carbon dioxide production, than the collective output of the world’s over six billion human population.
Furthermore, global warming is not the result of increased levels of carbon dioxide.
It is quite the opposite.
Increase in carbon dioxide production levels has been shown to be directly proportionate to increase in global temperatures. But, this is the sort of sinister chicanery repeatedly plied by media sorcerers and elite propagandists.
They pervert lies to appear as truth.
While it is true, there is a direct link between carbon dioxide and the earths overall temperature, climate change propaganda has distorted the true nature of that relationship. In other words, science is being distorted to fit a predetermined and prevailing political agenda. The fundamental assumptions of the climate change movement are based on a series of systematic inversions, distortions, and lies by omission.
The international inter-governmental panel on climate change, a non-government organization created under the auspices of the UN, remains notorious for its ‘notable’ consensus, consisting of over twenty-five-hundred scientists. Turns out, a great percentage of this list is padded out by survey experts, magazine reviewers, and climate journalists. In addition, the percentage of legitimate scientists listed is dubious as well. Though not reported by the media, many of these eminent scientists have asked to have their names removed. Some, have even gone so far as to threaten legal action against the panel, when it was discovered their names had not been redacted after repeated requests.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of America’s National Academy of Sciences, commented that key members of the IPCC had in fact censored what were construed as negative comments made by some of the contributing scientists.
“This report,” Seitz commented,” is not what it appears to be-it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.”
Seitz’ damaging comments went on to state:
“None of the studies cited show clear evidence that can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases of greenhouse gasses. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to anthropogenic or man made causes.”
Seitz went on to scathingly conclude:
“I have never witnessed a more than disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
More telling was the committee’s response to Seitz’ missive, stating that although it had chosen to delete any comments by scientists that could have been construed as negative to overall political sensibilities, “there had been no dishonesty or bias in the report,” and that, “uncertainties about the cause of global warming had not been suppressed.”
The committee went on to say:
“The changes had been made,” it stated, “in response to comments made from governments, individual scientists, and non-government organizations.”
Clearly, the climate change agenda is not about science, but politics, quickly being transformed into a dogmatic religion, tailor made for future generations of the 21st century.
One thought on “‘CLIMATE CHANGE’: SCIENCE, POLITICS or RELIGION?”