top of page
  • Writer's pictureAdmin

Climate change: Are you a fanatic or a denier?

By Carl Peterson

This can be an enormous subject. Because of age, global warming may be your first experience being exposed to such hyper-discussion; the first time you have been expected to be engaged in national arguments; the first time you have seen blatant narratives that are so mentally disturbing; and the first time you may have been caught up in blistering conversations where you find yourself following someone else's narrative without having taken any time to do unbiased reading in order to determine for yourself what makes the most sense, the most logic, and provides the most reasoned response.

It seems every generation gets exposed to similar situations. Before most of us were born, whale oil was used to generate energy. However, the most legitimate argument against using whale oil is that the planet does not have enough whales to keep that form of energy going.

Then someone found oil fossils that served as a substitute and the first creative destruction took place, the whales were canceled for oil, and the problem was solved. But a new panic soon followed.

The next national panic was underway in the 1960s. We were all told that we would be out of oil in 10 years.

It was followed by another national emergency to worry about in the 70s—another Ice Age would be upon us in 10 years and millions would be lost.


Then in the 1980s came the acid rain hyperbole. Within 10 years we would all starve to death because all of our crops would be destroyed by acid rain. In the mid-1980s, the UN made its first announcement that within 10 years there would be global flooding and massive loss of life because of global warming.

In the 1990s, the focus included the ozone layer would be gone within 10 years.

In the early 2000s, the UN’s postulation from the 80s was leverage and the emergency was that the ice caps would disappear within 10 years, causing global flooding. An all-encompassing new mantra was created—it’s called “climate change.”

For many, the new term did not escape the obvious. The climate is different in some way every day of the year. Look up to the sky. That exact cloud formation will never exist again. Every day there is some sort of change in the climate.

But the point is that none of these emergencies actually happened, but our taxes seemed to increase each time because of them! Someone got rich promoting the hype. We are nearly 40 years into the 10-year emergency of global flooding and each day we still hear some sort of announcement that we only have 10 years before massive loss of life.

Ask me when I was the most depressed in my life and I will tell the story about the Club of Rome in the late 60s and early 70s. Social scientists from all over the world, led by Calvin Georgescu, met in Rome to discuss the future of our planet. Finally, they issued their findings. They had concluded that unless we dramatically reduce our population, we will never make it to the year 2000.

There will be mass starvation, infectious diseases with no known cures, many pandemics, ubiquitous toxic chemicals, and pestilence will be global and hundreds of millions of people will perish.

As a young buck, I was beside myself. “What was the use of living if we are all going to be killed by our own making?” I took copious notes and followed everything I could about its progress. And then, within five years, the Club of Rome made an announcement that literally all their pronouncements would not happen. Why? Generally, they said they had not considered the human equation and that when humans are hard-pressed, they create solutions and overcome great challenges. We are the only species that can do that.

Haven’t the climate change devotees over the last 35-40 years also stated that the masses will drown or perish from coastal flooding?


The whole objective of the current addicts is to eliminate all carbon dioxide (Co2). Since there must be a lot of it, ask your friends, “What percentage of our atmosphere, to the lowest whole number, is currently carbon dioxide?” Most will have no clue.

So ask, “What is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere?” Again, rarely will they know. They often say carbon dioxide. Answer: 78 percent of our atmosphere is nitrogen. “So, what is the second most prevalent gas?” Again. Answer: “Approximately 21 percent of our atmosphere is oxygen so we can breathe! So, how much is 78 plus 21?” “99 percent” “So that leaves only 1 percent, what so you think is the third most prevalent gas in the atmosphere?” Everyone will say Co2. Answer: “No, it is Argon and Argon is approximately 0.93 percent.”

That leaves no “whole number” but the fourth gas is Co2 and it amounts to 0.0395 percent! That is not much is it?

So, if Co2 is less than half of 1 percent, how is it logical that 0.5 percent is creating global warming or catastrophes and how will it create a panacea for eliminating catastrophes?

This alone creates lots of questions. There are so many subjects to cover in subsequent articles but for those who want to really learn the details, there are a few books with great detail. “Dark Winter” by Casey, “Fossil Future” by Epstein, and “False Alarm” by Lomberg will get you started.

Carl Peterson is the president of Money Resources Inc. Send feedback to

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition


bottom of page