While starting to write this article, a unique prevarication came through the internet. It said, "Years ago families had three, four, five kids to do the work necessary to afford their lifestyle. Today the kids have three, four, five fathers to provide their expectations."
Climate change is similar in many ways. The media and all the hype have led them to believe a fraud that the real scientists say is not true. So maybe we should take some time to look at how we got to where we are euphemistically and discuss what is true and not true from real scientists.
There was a recent article that said: "Megalomaniacs like Klaus Schaub, Bill Gates, Fauci, John Kerry, Al Gore and many others need/want to control the world and eliminate a great portion of the population. They give little thought about how their globalist ideas would collapse their world too - who would provide the food, run the millions of machines, and wait on them hand and foot? Worshipping the beast will logically destroy them too.
Have you been noticing how hyper and red-faced they get when discussing climate change in recent months or years?
“Today, the politically correct view (theirs) is that humans (us/we) are causing catastrophic climate change. They are finding out that some very famous people and some very powerful people (all called "deniers") are very much pushing back and disputing their hype and the promoters really do not know who is right and who is wrong.
All of us need to get engaged in expert research, absorb the science from the experts, share the expert knowledge with the rest of us, and help others evaluate the actions taken by what the media promotes as experts. We all need to be conversant on facts because the herd of carabao are moving in the direction that it is a complete fraud that humans are causing a catastrophic event.”
Unfortunately, the "deniers" have proven with science that they are right -- the human impact is minuscule, and it is not causing global warming or climate change and for sure it is not causing the world to turn into catastrophic ruin.
"Deniers" are criticized for not following the science but it is they who are following science; it is all those who are so intense about climate change causing the confusion.
Those who are not following science and insist that the world must take extreme measures to stop climate change are the ones perpetuating a hoax that will create serious damage to the world.
And by a wide margin, the ones who will be hurt the most are the poor as they no longer will have a path for pulling themselves up by their bootstraps to find a way out of poverty.
For us to absorb the science (the synthesization of information) for a cacophony of evidence about climate change requires organization, refinement, and the condensing of the information. The average citizen only wants the bottom line - what are the condensed facts?
For climate change information, the leading synthesizer is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. In 1986 it was the first to predict we only have 10 years to change before climate change will seriously impact all of civilization.
While there are hundreds of organizations following the gospel of the IPCC, it is the IPCC that synthesizes the research primarily done by universities and government institutions. To do this requires a lot of due diligence and judgment to sort out the whole field of a particular subject in a very accurate way to share it with the world in a discernible manner.
But when an interested party goes through the many thousands of pages of IPCC-related synthesis they will not find any quantification of climate-related deaths. Over the last 150 years, they say CO2 levels and temperatures have risen. So when you review the world's leading source of climate disaster information, you find that it contradicts their moral case for eliminating fossil fuels and creating zero levels of CO2 (which would kill the world's population).
Climate-related deaths have dramatically decreased by 98 percent over the last 150 years when the temperature increased a fraction over 1 degree Celsius. That confirms a lot about humanity being able to adapt to or master climate danger.
It also tells us a lot about whether or not possible changes are going to impact humanity. We do not know the IPCC's motives for omitting the fact that deaths have dramatically decreased but when such an important fact is omitted from the report, it tells us the significance of what the "experts" think is greatly distorted.
When the president, Al Gore or John Kerry insist that the debate is over, that there is overwhelming consensus from scientists who agree that humans are causing the problem and that humans are about to destroy the world, it is easy to guess there is another important side to that prediction.
There is a proverbial mountain of studies that dispute and refute this. Science has not proven that human-caused climate will destroy mankind. Neither is there a consensus claim among scientists that supports this; the 97 percent consensus claim is a hoax within a hoax.
The anthropogenic global warming hoax seems to have taken control of the U.S., an educated nation, as well as much of the world. The AGW advocates need to prove their case. They need to prove their extreme positions, not the deniers trying to prove a negative.
In his book "The Climate Change Hoax Argument." C. Paul Smith lists a bunch of scientists and their complaints about the IPCC reports and their aggressive rebuke of the IPCC misleading people. He pointed out errors in the report.
In an appendix, he writes about “How the Atmosphere Was Made,” explaining that the atmosphere (from the ground up 20 miles) is composed of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.93 percent argon and of the remaining 0.07 percent gases, CO2 is only 0.0395 percent.
Doesn't it pique your interest enough to ask the next pseudo-science follower to guess what the atmosphere consists of?
And then follow it up with the question, "If the atmosphere is less than one-half of one percent CO2, do you really think it is having that much impact on our climate? Thirdly, if we remove all CO2, the earth would die because no plant would survive since CO2 keeps the plants alive. We learn that the earth suffers approximately 10,000 volcanoes per year that spew out enormous amounts of CO2 and no IPCC report even mentions the impact of volcanoes. Why do you think they purposely did not include that report and the impact on climate?
Likewise, the sun and the clouds cover—which are influenced by aerosols— all dust and particles that become airborne from winds and earthquakes as well as the particles and gases from fires and the burning of fossil fuels. All these impact temperatures on the planet but they are not mentioned in the reports either. Is it because no scientist has been able to conclude what causes them? Doesn't that do an injustice to their argument and to the people who read them?
The last appendix titled, "Why Human-caused Climate Change is a Hoax,” sums up 14 critical points that refute the claim that humans cause catastrophic climate change, explaining the errors-filled hype.
Carl Peterson is the president of Money Resources Inc. Send feedback to email@example.com