Manmade Climate Change: The pollution of science by politics and the road to world government

Let me first begin by stating that everything that is written here are my words only. It is my opinion combined with research that I have conducted and it is not my aim to insult or attack anyone. I merely try to provoke thought and have a discussion on the topic of manmade climate change. Also it is my opinion that we must make use of our planet in a much more sustainable way than we do now, including the stimulation and implementation of renewable energy. Pollution, biodiversity degradation, and other environmental state changes are very serious problems and require in my opinion head on action. However, I do not support hasty and radical decisions that could potentially have devastating effects on the world’s economy and the wealth and well-being of most of the world’s population. It is my take that we should be very critical of the solutions that are being proposed to us through our governments and institutions such as the United Nations. And that we should also be aware of our sovereignty and freedom that might be at stake in combatting manmade global warming.
------------------------------------------------------------------

“Manmade global warming”, also known as “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW), or “climate change” as it has been called in recent years, is one of the most discussed and heated topics of our time. We are getting bombarded on a daily basis for years now with spectacular and fear mongering headlines such as unprecedented high temperatures, rising sea levels and the increase in extreme weather events. Almost everything nowadays is being blamed on manmade global warming: cold winters, prostitution and even whether asteroids could be an effect of global warming. For a lot of people it has become their new religion.

The absurdity of this manmade global warming hysteria that we have been experiencing for quite some time now has completely taken over the minds of almost everyone and has effectively removed any rational and scientific debate. This comes as no surprise though as this doom and gloom is constantly fueled by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and the “experts” and politicians that the public relies upon for getting its information about climate change. And it does not really provoke critical thinking either when you see utterly disturbing anti-skepticism campaigns such as the 10:10’s “No Pressure” campaign. Even so, it is unquestionable that the intentions of most people to “go green” are good and pure, and that they actually want to make the world a better place. For most of us it is obvious that the path that we are currently on is not a very sustainable one and harms the environment in many ways. So a logical consequence of all this would be the demand by the public and organizations for greater and immediate action by our leaders.

We are being told is that if we keep consuming fossil fuels and do not take immediate action by reducing our carbon emissions on a global scale, we will face something like the “the end of the world as we know it.” All that we see and hear is to be afraid of this invisible enemy that is threatening our existence. Apart from the notion that fear sells, it also makes it a lot easier for people in power to control the thoughts and actions of the larger public. Most of the environmental movements have embraced the opportunity of global warming and are using it to raise awareness and to push for stricter environmental and energy policies. Important to note is that large sums of money are being pumped into these Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) making them incredibly powerful and influential in shaping regional and global policy.

The story around global warming and carbon dioxide has in some occasions become so absurd and twisted that we now hear the dangers of so called CO2 “pollution” through environmental groups such as Greenpeace. However, it seems that not all people from these “green” organizations remember much of their biology classes anymore or are just turning a blind eye on it. Either way, it looks like many of us have simply forgotten that CO2 is an essential natural greenhouse gas and that it is the “food” that plants and trees rely on in order to produce oxygen through photosynthesis. In other words, it is vital to sustain life on earth, regardless the effect it might have on the climate.

Continued in the next post…

Continuation of the previous post.

We are also told not to question the science of manmade global warming, because “the science is settled”. Manmade global warming guru Al Gore states that the debate is over and that we must save the planet together in order to prevent a catastrophe from happening. However, almost no one seems to know or care that this “green prophet” is making billions out of carbon trade and has become the world’s first ‘carbon billionaire’. Or that his biased documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains at least nine scientific errors according to a high court judge. Ironically enough, it seems that Al Gore is not so worried about rising sea levels after all, because he just bought a new $8 million oceanfront mansion.

On top that, we are expected to listen to the people of the IPCC and to rely on their verdicts that come out of their climate bible. Even when the IPCC models are proven to be unreliable and have overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%. And we are also supposed to forget about the climate gate scandals that came to light in 2009, 2011 and 2013. For example the e-mail in where CRU head Phil Jones breaks the law by asking Michael Mann, creator of the controversial “hockey stick graph”, to delete a series of e-mails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received. Not to mention the data-tampering on numerous occasions in the United States, South America, Australia and Switzerland. Or just the various silly flaws in the IPCC reports such as the claim that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, whereas in fact this is only 26%. And why the IPCC suddenly changed its viewpoint and got rid of the medieval warm period in their latest reports.

It looks like many people simply seem to forget that the earth’s climate always has changed and will always change. The planet has endured many glacial periods in the past with the most recent little ice age extending from the 16th century to the 19th century. Probably not so many have heard of the so called “pause” or the “hiatus” in global warming that has been going on for about 18 years now, depending on which dataset is used. There are now a total of 52 “explanations” for the lack of global warming in recent decades. Some scientists even suggest that we might be facing another ice age in the near future, referring to the trend in solar cycles and the periods of warming and cooling that correspond with the maunder minimum. Also, how many of us know that according to NASA the ice on Antarctica is actually not melting, but growing and is setting new record highs in sea ice extent? Or that the icon of global warming, the polar bear, is actually doing quite well? And that there are actually several studies that conclude that CO2 lags temperature by a few hundred years, and not the other way around?

Continued in the next post…

Continuation of the previous post.

We are also told that there is a 97% consensus among scientists, and that according to President Obama “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Of course, all such a number really does is nothing more than boosting the “credibility” of the people and the organizations that are advocating the manmade global warming theory and install more fear in the public. Unsurprisingly, when you actually start doing some research on your own and read beyond the headlines a very different picture emerges. The particular study, that was conducted by Cook et al and on which this whole 97% consensus nonsense is based, has been proven to be inconsistent, misleading and biased on multiple occasions. For example in this study, this paper and many more. Cook’s desperate attempt to avoid losing face with a new paper has been flat out rejected by Earth System Dynamics, stating that it would need “substantial further revisions before being ready (if ever) for this journal. The problems are several fold.”

The problem here is not solely the fact that it was revealed to be a bogus study. Or the question whether there really is a consensus amongst scientists. Or the fact that the IPCC, politicians, environmental organizations and mainstream media, just blatantly use these false numbers to push the unknowing public into one direction: catastrophic manmade global warming. It is the integrity of science that is at stake here. And the dogma, not data, that seems to have taken control over almost every climate change debate and policy decision these days. On top of that, the policy proposals based on this “settled science” that are being pushed could potentially do more harm than good. Starving the world for energy just to cut a tiny fraction of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is probably not the best solution.

On top of that, having a consensus in science does not help much, other than increasing the potential for groupthink and reduced critical thinking. In science there should always be a healthy dose of skepticism, otherwise one cannot be labeled as a true scientist. There should be room for debating, questioning and challenging the presented scientific theory at all times. Hiding behind a fictional number is just ignorant and does not provide a solid ground for scientific debate in any way. Nor does calling the sceptics of the AGW theory ‘deniers’, and comparing them with ‘Holocaust deniers’, contribute much value to a discussion. To further illustrate the madness that many have become victim of is that there are now even people that are calling for making “climate denial” a “crime against humanity.”

So how did it come to all this? Why does it seem that the we simply have to accept everything that is being fed about AGW without questioning? And why are the sceptic views on the AGW theory so often avoided, ridiculed, ignored or even censored by the politicians and the mainstream media? There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the sceptics of the AGW are actually trying to put forward here. It is not the question whether the climate changes, or if humans are increasing CO2 levels, or that the surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect. This is what basically all scientists agree on. However, there is much disagreement among scientists whether the warming has been primarily caused by human causes versus natural variability, and that is the main issue. It are the uncertainties that are present in trying to understand the very complex science of our climate system.

Continued in the next post…

Continuation of the previous post.

Sadly, the near complete absence of any rational scientific debate seems to be the product of politics that has polluted the science of climate change. It is not about the science anymore, if it ever really was. Manmade climate change has created a potential multitrillion dollar global industry with lots of people wanting to ride this new tidal wave of money and power coming directly or indirectly from the manmade global warming scare. Countless jobs, research grants and entire careers depend on the continuation of this “green agenda” to counter AGW. This might also explain why many of the people that dare to speak out, and are not afraid to swim against the current, are actually retired scientists. They can afford to continue their research on climate change independently without having to conform to certain terms of reference set by governments and institutions.

And let’s also not forget that there are political agendas in play on every level. There are many that want to have a piece of the carbon pie. However, the real agenda for the elites at the very top of the pyramid is not about the quest for more money, but the thirst for more power and control. We are seeing the moves of the 3d chess players versus the 2d chess players in the grand geopolitical arena (analogy by James Corbett). Some of the strategic blueprints for achieving this goal include Agenda 2030, formerly known as Agenda 21, and which is the United Nation’s Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Earth Charter, an ethical framework set up by The World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987.

It is not really a secret anymore that these agendas and treaties are all part of a greater plan, the foundation for world government. There are actually numerous globalists that have openly spoken about this, including David Rockefeller, of the infamous Rockefeller family, in his book Memoirs in where he states:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Another very interesting citation comes from The First Global Revolution, a report written by the Council of the Club Of Rome (COR), an organization that describes itself as a “global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues”.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

In order to better understand the bigger picture that is unfolding here in front of our eyes, we must first go deep down the rabbit hole and be willing to dig up a lot of information. Only then we can try to begin to make sense of it all.

Thanks for taking the time to read my take on the manmade climate change story. I'm very much looking forward to your responses!

a reply to: snchrnct

I couldn't agree more, but there is no room for discussion with true believers.

Great thread, tremendous effort, truly wish I could give you more stars and flags!!

a reply to: Sargeras

Thank you very much! It took quite some effort, but it was totally worth it!

Jeezuz all that work and the title pretty much says it all.....

a reply to: snchrnct

Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.

EDIT: By which I mean don't quote some idiot anchor on YouTube. By the way, I write for a re/insurance magazine and the re/insurance industry has been warning about global warming for decades now. All I see in your post is a reheated hash of the same points from deniers.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: snchrnct

Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.

EDIT: By which I mean don't quote some idiot anchor on YouTube. By the way, I write for a re/insurance magazine and the re/insurance industry has been warning about global warming for decades now. All I see in your post is a reheated hash of the same points from deniers.

What the hell is the "re/insurance industry?

Also, if your pay check relies on that industry, doesn't that make your opinion highly biased?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: snchrnct

Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.

I hope you understand that it was merely a way to highlight one of the many absurdities that we have come accross when discussing manmade global warming?

So it all boils down to "The climate is definitely changing, can we just sit here and do nothing about it or do we have to actually change the status quo to fix it?" You can't deny that the majority of the current world infrastructure is heavily invested in the way things run now and the big oil companies and other energy firms rankle at the concept that we might not be beholden to fossil fuels forever. It's a bit of a crap shoot. 100+ years isn't much time to establish a trend when it comes to the climate, which is a somewhat chaotic system, but we do know that things are changing dramatically. What we're faced with is a good ol' fashioned gamble, IF these climate changes are a result of the billions of humans pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere there is a possibility of an ecosystem collapse that would be almost impossible to recover from. If it's a natural cycle then we're just naturally screwed and can keep consuming and polluting to our hearts content until the climate stabilizes or the entire earth is turned into a desert.

So it seems we're presented with two choices, either decide that there's something that can actually be DONE about the climate change and embrace the concept that if we caused it we should be able to reverse it, or keep living like we have been, bury our head in the sand, and hope things get better.

I definitely know which one I HOPE it turns out to be.

Alright, let's say Climate Change isn't occuring and humans have no effect on the global temperatures at all.

Why, exactly, is it so bad to focus excessively on cleaner fuels, free energy, sustainability, reduction of pollution, reduction of waste, taxation on companies who produce both an excessive amount of pollution and unnecessary pollution when there are greener alternatives, the protection of ecosystems, the advancement in technology that leads to green energy, so on and so forth.

That is what the people who accept the concept of a human-influence over global climate change want. Why is that bad?

You state that "governments and companies" want to benefit off of these changes, yet you seem to dismiss that it would mean the end of one of the most financially backed, money hungry industries in human history, Big Oil.

When sustainable, green, free energy arrives, the fossil fuel industry eventually dies. So the argument that "the government and companies" benefit off of this movement towards sustainable energy is moot considering who would suffer from it.

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

a reply to: snchrnct

one of the hardest things to grasp about this whole debacle is that we are chastised for using fossil fuels, yet have no alternative method to fall back on. Yes, I get that somewhere, electric cars exist, and solar panels have been installed, but to date, we still have coal fired power plants, gasoline powered cars, buses, trucks and motorcycles. So until I see an alternative THAT WORKS AND IS COST EFFECTIVE, I think we will continue to go in the same direction. No matter how much we snuggle up to Al Gore.

And as far as the cost effective comment goes, I am all for hydrogen for fuel. It's a wonderful alternative. The only problem with it, is they use the same or more "fossil fuel" to make hydrogen as it would take to just drive in a gas car. So the environmental impact is the same, with just more cost. Fix that, and we may have a solution to the polar bears loosing all their homes.

originally posted by: Ghost147

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

Somebody didn't read the OP.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Ghost147

But, never mind that, just answer me this. Why is it a bad thing to focus primarily on the advancement of green, sustainable energy?

Somebody didn't read the OP.

Here's a quote from the op:

Also it is my opinion that we must make use of our planet in a much more sustainable way than we do now, including the stimulation and implementation of renewable energy. Pollution, biodiversity degradation, and other environmental state changes are very serious problems and require in my opinion head on action. However, I do not support hasty and radical decisions that could potentially have devastating effects on the world’s economy and the wealth and well-being of most of the world’s population.

When I stated "a primary focus on the advancement of green energy" I was referring to it immediately.

The OP doesn't deny that there needs to be sustainable energy.

The OP doesn't deny that pollution, biodiversity degradation, and the destruction of the environments needs to stop.

But he does state that we shouldn't take these steps as soon as possible.

"Dogma, not data" pretty well sums up the situation. I read the Club of Rome's book The Limits of Growth way back in the 1970's. According to their distinguished panel the entire world would be facing starvation and energy shortages long before we hit the year 2000. Needless to say that pitiful excuse for a book help form my attitude towards those who would later come along proclaiming DOOM. I was nearly ostracized as a friend for daring to disagree with Al Gore's movie. It's incredible the amount of near-religious fervor certain subjects engender. That alone is another warning sign that all is not right in the land of Oz.

Obama's tampering with the energy economy has brought destitution to vast tracts of Appalachia who's sole industry was coal mining. By shutting down dozens of old coal-fired electrical generation plants Obama has condemned large sections of the country - all based on the premise of bringing down CO2 emissions even though China and India are burning more coal then ever and Australia is currently enjoying a boom in it's mining. They are in fact, considering doubling the size of the fleet of ore ships to carry coal across the South China sea.

Very well written OP.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: snchrnct

Sorry, but the moment that you tried to link meteorites to global warming I lost it and started laughing. No. Cites please.

EDIT: By which I mean don't quote some idiot anchor on YouTube. By the way, I write for a re/insurance magazine and the re/insurance industry has been warning about global warming for decades now. All I see in your post is a reheated hash of the same points from deniers.

What the hell is the "re/insurance industry?

Also, if your pay check relies on that industry, doesn't that make your opinion highly biased?

Re/insurance is a rather specialised industry. It's insurance for the insurance companies, as not every insurance company has the reserves required to pay out on major claims. And no, the re/insurance industry has no dog in that fight. If global climate change wasn't happening then they'd say so, very loudly. They don't like paying out money for claims. They don't like the various complexities that it brings up. They don't like the fact that certain areas are becoming uninsurable, like parts of Florida.
Insurance companies and re/insurance companies alike want nothing more than nice stable areas filled with people who can pay premiums. At a time when investment returns are so low because government bonds are lower than they have ever been, then reinsurers want a quiet life. Sadly they aren't getting one. And the modelling agencies are pointing out that it's going to continue like this for a while yet.
So no, I am not biased. I have just read too many reports by companies like Munich Re and Swiss Re about climate change. Oh and reports from Lloyd's of London. They are unpleasantly educational.

a reply to: Slanter

Oil companies and other large energy suppliers are also heavily funding the green side of the climate change debate. It would be in my opinion naïve to think that "going green" would hurt the oil industry very much as they are largely two sides of the same coin. These corporations have nearly endless amount of funds and are surely not backing up when governments offer them money for developing sustainable technologies. Plus do you really think that these companies are not aware of this shift towards renewable energy and do not have a plan to play a role in all this?

And with regards to you point that we need to take action. I think it would only be right to take action when we much better understand the workings of the climate system and our impact than we do now. We should not adopt draconian policies on just a "gamble" that it will happen, there is way too much at stake for that. I think the right approach would be to take just a little bit more time before we actually step into these extreme measures. Lastly, there should be much more room for sceptical scientists of the climate change debate to have their say in all this, AKA let real science again lead the way to real solutions.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
"Dogma, not data" pretty well sums up the situation. I read the Club of Rome's book The Limits of Growth way back in the 1970's. According to their distinguished panel the entire world would be facing starvation and energy shortages long before we hit the year 2000. Needless to say that pitiful excuse for a book help form my attitude towards those who would later come along proclaiming DOOM. I was nearly ostracized as a friend for daring to disagree with Al Gore's movie. It's incredible the amount of near-religious fervor certain subjects engender. That alone is another warning sign that all is not right in the land of Oz.

Obama's tampering with the energy economy has brought destitution to vast tracts of Appalachia who's sole industry was coal mining. By shutting down dozens of old coal-fired electrical generation plants Obama has condemned large sections of the country - all based on the premise of bringing down CO2 emissions even though China and India are burning more coal then ever and Australia is currently enjoying a boom in it's mining. They are in fact, considering doubling the size of the fleet of ore ships to carry coal across the South China sea.

Very well written OP.

Absolute honk. The Appalachian coal industry has been declining since Reagan's day.

a reply to: snchrnct

Brilliant.

In summer it's hot, in winter it's cold, our history books are filled with mother nature striking her furious anger upon the world.

Nothings changed.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

Here are some pictures......