Mobilisation, Action, Solutions and Peaceful Resistance.
Download The Referenced Climate Change Report Here
It is important to mention the proclaimed problem is ‘anthropogenic’ climate change, because we are being accused of it. Simply calling it Climate Change™ is a misnomer. It insinuates that our climate was once somehow stable, and would never change if mankind did not influence it. This, of course, is completely untrue. Our climate has been fluctuating for longer than we’ve had a word for it. The average annual temperature is usually either rising or falling and the temperature is never static for a long period of time. Our climate is in continual flux. They seek to create a climate of fear.
Interestingly, in 1484, a witch-hunt was indirectly sanctioned by Pope Innocence VIII because it was believed witches were responsible for the change in the climate. It was not until the late seventeenth century that this practice was stopped. Are we just as carelessly pointing the finger now?
“None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2.”
– Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action
I would like to reinforce that our planet’s climate is constantly changing. 225 million years ago the Earth’s atmosphere was much warmer than now, and was accompanied with more oxygen. 12,000 years ago our planet was finally overcoming a thousand year cold snap called the “Ice Age.” Almost 1,000 years ago during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (MWP), the temperature was warmer than even today, and 2 centuries ago our climate was considerably cooler than now, a period known as the ‘Little Ice Age.’ (LIA)
In fact since 1895, the media has alternated between both global cooling and global warming scares on four separate and occasionally overlapping periods. Could it be the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time? Could it be the biggest distraction from actual environmental issues which stand to severely threaten the life and biodiversity of this planet such as GMOs or fracking? Could it be another ploy to steal even more money, through taxing Carbon, one of the 4 building blocks of life on this planet? Could it be a tactic to create the false notion we are but a plague upon the earth, and for its protection we should be culled?
The environmental movement is arguably one of the most influential social phenomena in modern history. It has spawned thousands of organisations and still claims millions of misled, but well-meaning, and committed activists. It was only a few years ago you could not turn on a television without encountering the phrase ‘man-made global warming’. As is a common trend in today’s society, the media tells the public exactly what they need to know. The public does an excellent job of enforcing and reinforcing these beliefs in each other. And of course, there is a very obvious intolerance of any dissenting voice. Someone who stands up and questions the validity of this ‘global threat’ is seen by many to be committing one of the most politically incorrect acts: …to doubt climate change…
Initially this body of people was referred to as “Climate Skeptics”. Dr. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, Climatologist remembers at one time saying “All scientists are skeptics, if you are not a skeptic, then you are not a scientist!” When this demonization did not have a considerable effect at swaying these scientists, or discrediting them, they brought out the new term: “Climate Change Deniers,” deliberately chosen for its connotations to holocaust deniers.
This was to create an emotional undertone that doubting this “inconvenient truth” was something very evil, and farcical. Of course it is also an example of ad-hominem, where if you can’t defeat a person’s argument rationally, you simply start attacking the person. And we see that with these terms and we see that with Al Gore calling “deniers” “flat-Earthers”. These people are anything but deniers. Everyone is aware the climate changes naturally, no one denies that. The scientists merely point out the inconsistencies in data and the implausibility that mankind has had or ever will have a significant effect on Earth’s climate.
“I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true.”
– Prof. John Christy. Lead Author IPCC
In more recent years, and in spite of it all, revealing information has leaked out that official data was being manipulated. This manipulated data favoured the argument that human activity WAS warming the planet. Scientists, or “climate change deniers”, have been flooding into the argument to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt mankind has little to do with global warming, to the extent ‘Global Warming’ alarmists had to downgrade its name to the even vaguer: ‘Climate Change’.
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”
As it stands presently, the atmosphere is filled with nitrogen gas (about 78%), oxygen (about 21%), water vapour (up to 4%), carbon dioxide (about 0.360%).3 The presence of CO2 was significantly higher hundreds of thousands of years ago and is actually quite low. This present atmosphere is shaped by living organisms, who, through living and breathing, keep it as it is. This is known as the Gaia hypothesis; where all organisms and their inorganic surroundings are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating, complex system; thus maintaining life on this planet.
As CO2 has significantly declined over the eons, the sun too has become brighter. When the sun was less powerful, we needed more CO2 to keep us warmer. With Carbon Dioxide at 0.360% it is virtually undetectable from the 93% of CO2 the atmosphere used to possess. We now receive 30% more sunlight since these times. One major, significant factor associated with climate change is, of course, the sun. A 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun’s output alone was responsible for 50% of 20th Century warming.
“Based on the evidence of ice core studies at the polar ice caps, it shows that CO2 follows temperature, not the opposite. So the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change by human intervention of CO2 emissions causing temperature changes is wrong.”
– Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg
The main argument by Al Gore is that carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas driving the temperature of the Earth. This scientific basis is crumbling. Graphs used by Al Gore in the comedy “An Inconvenient Truth,” when positioned atop one another rather than alongside one another (as they were in the movie), show a very different picture. It shows carbon dioxide gas lagging behind temperature changes in history by up to 800 years.
So carbon dioxide follows temperature, rather than temperature following carbon dioxide. CO2 thus has no affect on temperature. “You can’t say that CO2 drives climate, it certainly never did in the past. CO2 just doesn’t cause temperature change.”
“Human intervention accounts for a small fraction of CO2 of the atmospheric gases in the atmosphere. Water vapour accounts for about 97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for 1.9%. Therefore, man is responsible for less than 3% of all greenhouse effect in the atmosphere globally.”
– Dr. John Christy, Atmospheric Physicist at the University of Alabama,
And leading author of IPCC report
Al Gore is quoted as saying “what the international scientific community is saying is correct, there is no legitimate basis for denying it.” Basically he is saying ‘since no scientists disagree (which itself is a lie), you shouldn’t disagree either, slave.’ Whenever you hear that in science, it is always pure propaganda. Science is never settled.
“Science is a search for objective proof, it can’t be politicised. You can pretend to politicise it for a time, but in the end the truth pokes through.” – Lord Christopher Monkton, British politician, public speaker
And when you look at the international scientific community, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), many of its scientists actually opposed the consensus. It originally stood as 3,600 scientists, and now is down to 2,500. Out of these 2,500, most of them are not even scientists at all. They are bureaucrats, reviewers etc, and very few of them are actually climate experts.
“Extra CO2 is no danger, it’s a good thing.”
– Piers Corbyn, Meteorologist, astrophysicist,
Outspoken critic of the theory of anthropogenic global warming
What is masquerading as environmentalism is nothing but phony science. If we really want to help the environment, if we really believe in freedom and truth, we need to hold these people accountable for their lies, and come together to have more open discussions because this is sincerely one major distraction.
People have to understand the entire global climate change hysteria is driven by computer models, not driven by reality. Reality is not warming up like the models said it would. No computer in the world has the capacity to handle the data or interactions or complexities of the climate. The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth and the oceans and vegetation systems are so very complex. The way these components all interact with each other are also complex. They react in non linear ways, all effected and changed by each other.
Therefore, climate is a very dubious subject. Not surprisingly, modelling climate change realistically involves many problems. Even super-computers are inadequate to allow for such a thing. The science and physics remains unresolved on phenomena such as clouds, hence incorporating clouds into models is inherently flawed. It is generally recognised that models are, at present, experimental tools, whose relation to the real world is questionable.
“It is absolutely bizarre that the people who can’t tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 year’s time.”
– Michael O’Leary, Ryanair Boss
“Many things we thought we knew about the climate system just a few years ago are proving to be highly uncertain or quite mistaken.”
Professor Tim Patterson. Dept. of Earth Sciences,
Carlton University Testimoney before Canada’s House of Commons, Feb 10, 2005
A large number of calculations show that if this all happened, if it was all real, we might expect a warming of from 0.5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade at the most. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems.
Both proponents and detractors of climate change point to every disaster, every storm, every heat wave and cyclone as proof whether it is or is not happening. Is there any basis for this alarmism?
Global Warming is peppered throughout every news story, with everyone hyping apocalyptic climate changes which could flood cities and turn lush meadows into barren deserts. Movies were made to brace the public for such atrocities, and psychologically prepare and desensitise and influence them. The second you make that ‘apocalyptic’ pronouncement, it is easy to go around the world and find examples to support your viewpoint. There is no time in Earth’s history where you could go around and NOT find damaging hurricanes and tornadoes. They are not linked to green house gasses.
Why is every change in climate being referred to as catastrophic and our doing? The only thing that IS normal is that the climate does change. It has never been stable for any long period of time.
“Yes, it is a global problem and it has to be solved with a global strategy. But this is the rare but all important global, strategic problem. It is in the global dimension and every nation has to be a part of the solution.”
– Al Gore.
Is this about global governance again? Further centralisation of power? Is this another attack on our sovereignty? By allowing a tax on carbon we are, in essence, allowing an international body to come in and dictate what businesses and industries, and even people can or cannot do; which source of energy we must use, what kind, at what cost.
“They use the environmental movement to promote their real agenda,
Which is to promote globalisation and federalisation of power.”
– George Humphrey, businessman, author and film maker
They do not do something without a reason, and there is almost always an ulterior motive to anything they brand as “helpful” and “loving”. The underlying message in this environmental movement is one of distinct anti-humanism. They have argued that babies are “carbon monsters”, “carbon machines”, and every time they breathe they are polluting the planet. This, of course is an “insane, anti-human doctrine.”
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said the consensus had been reached before the research had even begun. The goal was already planned, to make humanity part of the problem, or just THE sole problem in humanity’s own mind. Despite “dozens of experts who have completely different views,” the media refuses to give the argument any credence, accepting climate change as true.
“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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome (of which Al Gore is a member),
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN.
By making carbon a pollutant, they have essentially said humanity is a disease or a cancer that ought to be wiped out; genocide. This is despite CO2 not being a major climate driver. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere as contributed by humans is severely dwarfed by other natural CO2 emitters, making our impact on the climate even smaller.
Along with water, sunlight and oxygen, carbon is one of the main building blocks of life. In photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and water, and, with the help of energy from the sun, produce glucose and water.
All plants produce oxygen. All humans inhale oxygen. All humans exhale carbon dioxide. All plants breathe carbon dioxide. This relationship cannot be lost. It is symbiotic.
What must also be reinforced and never forgotten is Julia Gillard’s pre-election promise: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” And of course despite public disapproval, she went ahead with it anyway; totalitarianism.
All these treaties are dangerous attacks on our freedoms, national security, land ownership and private property. Each one involves setting up a new global bureaucracy which would have some kind of obnoxious control over its citizens or our families or schools or businesses or our use of natural resources or energy, or our land. And together they add up to what is global governance.
“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose.”
– Club of Rome (of which Al Gore is a member),
Global temperatures appear to be rising irrespective of any human influence. Temperatures of planets in our solar system are also warming as a whole. Climatic changes measured during the last 100 years are not unique or even unusual when compared with the frequency, rate, and magnitude of changes that have taken place since the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, 10,000 years ago. Recent fluctuations in temperature, both upward and downward, are well within the limits observed in nature prior to human influence.
Such weak premises for cataclysm feed and contribute to societal instability. This can turn even the most questionable and dangerous suggestion into a slapdash, major political response, with massive economic and social consequences. Perhaps the dangers and costs of these economic and social consequences far outweigh the dangers and cost of the original problem itself? Think of the ability of many industries to profit from regulations, effectively neutralising any opposition.
They create the problem, induce your reaction, and provide the solution. And when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected on the grounds that the science is already settled, it definitely raises some red flags.
I am not saying humans do not have an effect on the climate, but the global warming scare is quite frankly a ploy and a distraction, which has stolen the hearts of so many misinformed activists and those who truly care for the environment. This issue is very effective in manipulating you to think you are responsible, that YOU are the reason the Earth is in the shape it is, instead of the true culprits. They even have carbon footprint calculators and carbon police enforcing new environmental laws, just to remind us how bad we are.
It has just reaffirmed that human activity can have a very negative impact, though we must differentiate between human activity, and the negative impacts of heartless, unaccountable and irresponsible multi-national corporations engaging in reckless activities. They often will do anything for profit, including subjecting the environment and species to irreparable harm. Or fluoridating the water supply, or releasing all the genetically modified organisms. Or the Bisphenol-A in all these products and the various other chemicals having horrific toxic effects. It is a coordinated eugenics agenda.
While the climate is being changed, and it is humans doing so, it is not our influence as a whole, but rather the actions of heavy industry, which is only in place to support this false system of economic growth in a debt based currency.