I can remember the moment I stopped looking at the climate change issue as a scientific debate and more like a religion trying to persecute nonbelievers. It involved Bill Nye the not-so-science guy, and he revealed he didn’t want to just persecute, he wanted to prosecute.
A YouTube channel called “cfact” interviewed Nye and host Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn’t too extreme.
“We’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” said Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”
It’s definitely an extreme view, but to climate alarmists like Nye, this is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. To those who are a part of the church of climate change, all the info they’ll ever need is in and the debate is over. Now is the time for action, and weirdly, the actions that need to be taken fall right in line with whatever the Democrats are proposing, whether it has to do with the climate or not.
From my personal perspective, I think a few things are clear. Climate change is real, but from what I garner it’s also completely natural. Our planet is a complicated ball of life-sustaining gases, temperatures, and interwoven ecosystem that spins at just the right angle around a giant ball of gas at just the right distance, and has for millions of years. Even a minor change to that balance could affect the weather on our planet and history shows that has happened to major effect in the past.
I also know that inside the protective bubble that encases our planet, the ecosystem we are a part of has amazingly adaptive qualities. For instance, one of the biggest fears of the climate alarmists is the introduction of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that somehow greenhouse gases would throw off the entire balance of nature and cause some kind of apocalyptic event.
However, according to NASA, that extra CO2 is causing the planet to undergo a “global greening.” In other words, vegetation is beginning to grow more, and in places where it hasn’t typically been seen before.
Unless you read my articles regularly, you may have never heard of “global greening” because the mainstream media — the PR wing of the church of climate change — benefits not at all by alleviating any panic about our environment. They are a purely “fire and brimstone” kind of church. According to them, we’re all going to die and die soon if we don’t obey their directions.
The fact is that information that wrecks the church of climate change’s narrative comes out pretty regularly. Denunciations of leftist-born climate models happen within the scientific community with more frequency than you’re led to believe.
While the church of climate change holds funerals for glaciers that have melted away, no one in the mainstream media is pointing to the glaciers that are actually growing. To quote my own reporting on the matter, complete with links:
Jakobshavn, which sits on Greenland’s west coast, has been growing thicker thanks to the North Atlantic Oscillation climate pattern which switches from warm to cold water every 20 years according to space.com. Climateers say that this is temporary because the oceans are warming, but Jakobshavn isn’t the only growing glacier. The two major glaciers at Glacier National Park (GNP) have been growing since 2010.
The GNP even had to quietly toss out signs they had put up that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020.
As you can see, there’s plenty of room to debate, but as my colleague Nick Arama reported, a recent video by John Stossel highlighted that despite there being evidence left and right that pokes holes in the claims of the climate alarmists, they refuse to show up and defend their points.
If we’re all going to die in 12 years, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims, wouldn’t it behoove scientists and politicians who are pushing so hard to push a sweeping restructure of America with legislation like the “Green New Deal” to show up to debates and convince the world by overcoming points that have been raised in objection? Wouldn’t they want to show us how silly our denial is?
Why aren’t they? Why are they running from every invitation to serious debate?
What’s more, why is it that so many of the proposed solutions require government control of everything? Why isn’t the solution to spring forward with technological development to make something like fossil fuels and coal irrelevant? Why do we need to revert to the failed economic system of socialism and not use the developmental momentum of capitalism to create new technologies and environmentally beneficial products?
Why won’t AOC attend any kind of forum where the crowd isn’t already convinced that she’s right? Why is she, instead, content to make wild claims about the world ending in 12 years, or that California wildfires are caused by climate change and not governmental mismanagement? Why is she making claims that rich white people are creating hurricanes, one of which, she alleges, killed her grandfather?
It’s because if the church of climate change were to make itself vulnerable by publicly putting itself on the debate stage, a lot of its facade would come tumbling down and you’d see it for what it is: an attempt at increasing government power. The cultish power it has over people must stand strong as it helps in garnering votes and increasing regulations.
It loves the fact that its believers are so rabid, and doesn’t care that these climate marches and protests are oftentimes not only ridiculous displays that have nothing to do with caring about the environment, they actually do more to hurt it. This includes twerking while confetti is thrown on you, starting a garbage fire in the street, and blocking cars so that they sit on the road emitting greenhouse gases longer.
Meanwhile, the “climate deniers” are out on the streets picking up mounds of trash in cities that claim to be climate champions.
Rest assured, I care about the health of the planet and I’d venture to guess most people do. I think that if we’re going to have solutions, however, they should be realistic and not some wide-sweeping change to our governmental system. I want calm, rational discussion, not cult-like fervors that feature teenagers screaming on a stage, chastisement from little girls at the United Nations, and men dancing provocatively in jean shorts while garbage is being burned in protest a few blocks away.
I would like real scientific data to be discussed, not just data that makes it seem like something is leaning in your favor and then declaring the debate over as that very data becomes outdated the following week.
I think the climate is changing as it has for thousands of years. I don’t think the world is going to end in 12 years. I’ve heard the world is going to end enough times without it actually ending. I think we have a lot of time to sit and really understand the global climate and what affects it and introduce solutions that will lessen our impact.
We’re getting nowhere by entering into the cult we’re being pressured to join.