What Fighting Climate Change Really Means

James R. Watkins | October 28, 2021

Right now there are millions, perhaps even billions of people who truly believe we have to fight climate change or our earth will be so bad no life will exist if we do not fight back.

Its roots can be traced to the year 2000 and Vice President Al Gore, who was so convinced industrial carbon was trapping heat from escaping the earth. that he introduced this theory into to the NEA curriculum.

Science says if we reduce our carbon output back to 1950 levels, then we can reduce or lower the GMT enough to prevent what they call a runaway climate disaster.

In a nutshell, this makes up the in toto belief in the climate change narrative and why experts say humanity needs to act.

Again, this has been taught in schools, lectured in the halls of academia and continues driving government policy and enormous funding into development of renewable energy designed to replace cheap, plentiful and easy to access fossil fuels that literally spews from the ground all over the world.

This is what they mean by “fighting climate change.” It means funding to develop renewable forms of energy to reduce carbon output. It also means profits from energy investment to energy companies and governments who, under the auspices of crisis, mandate energy policy away from cheap energy to much more expensive (and less effective) renewable energies.

Nothing would be wrong with any of this if the climate was actually in crisis, or if there really was such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

When Biden shut down Keystone XL oil pipeline and put back in place restrictive laws that limit energy production in the United States, the spigots went off and the oil access shifted back to the Middle East. It did not take long for a gallon of gas to rise from $2.22 to $2.79 within four months. 

As the cost of a barrel of oil has risen (due to demand from energy starved European countries who have converted to renewables), a barrel of crude is almost at $100. It was around $50 when Biden went into office, and we were then, the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world.

None of this would have happened if it were not for the support of climate activists, many of them young and who grew up through the ranks from 2000 to 2021 and who learned from propaganda growing up, that we have to “fight climate change.” 

About five years ago the marketeers decided to up the ante and refer to it as a “climate crisis.”

As we move forward, and with the full support of people who have been convinced we have a climate crisis, world leaders will have blank checks to write whatever they please in this fight to save the planet. They will shut down fossil fuels as fast as they can build windmills and put up solar panels. And people will be gleeful when the Scientists state we are “winning the war on climate change,” when they announce the grand news that the GMT is lowered by such and such a percent, proof the planet is going back to normal. 

And how would we know otherwise?

Without a college degree or letters next to my name I can hardly expect you to believe me when I tell you the climate change event is a hoax. I could point to naturally occurring cycles that can disprove climate crises theory, I can point to the fact that those nasty greenhouse gases are naturally produced in abundance, and that cloud cover, volcanic activity, solar radiation and a body of water three times larger than the total land mass land of earth are more than enough to counter any carbon activity you and I can create by cows farting or driving cars. But it won’t be enough to set you free from the programming. 

I can tell you, for example, that it was much warmer in 1300 (in the northern hemispheres) for the same reason it is slightly warmer today than it was two hundred years ago: Solar cycles and cosmic radiation plummet the earth in variable cycles, add to this sunspots that increase and lesson the magnetic envelope that protects us from cosmic radiation, or that fact that carbon, one of the most abundant molecules on the planet, when increased, causes vegetative growth that feeds all animal life.

All of these facts should reveal life on earth right now is perfectly normal, and certainly not in a crisis.

Even the IPCC report on global change acknowledges most weather events today have nothing to do with climate change. 

And how much has our GMT risen in twenty years? Google it and you will get five different answers. That’s not science, its speculation. There is no standard answer. Some say 1.5 degrees, other says 1.7, still others are closer to 1.0, but the answer also depends on the timeline. Compared to when?

Yet the fight to save the planet rages on.

In the 1980’s we talked about cleaning and preserving the climate, the issue then was pollution, not carbon; and how we needed to clean up our mess. It was a worthy movement until the movement shifted to global temperatures and fossil fuels. That’s when the war changed its objective.

If people had stayed focused on cleaning up and consuming less per capita, lowering the GDP and driving less, the earth would be a cleaner place in many ways and would have improved quality of life. But such is not the case. Apparently cleaning up pollution isn’t as profitable as “fighting climate change” with bureaucracy and rule-making, with energy rules that will restrict behavior and lower the quality of life for everyone without doing a damn thing to change anything!

Energy costs will skyrocket in this new war.

Even as I write this article energy becomes artificially scarce by the day; the poor throughout the world suffer the most and politicians will pat themselves on the back as they tell us we have averted a crisis, thanks to our sacrifice.

At the UN Climate Conference meeting in Scotland this week what is being discussed is money. Lot’s of it, to put wherever there is a pet project under the banner of “fighting climate change.”

Hollow words.

People like California Governor Gavin Newsom want his State to be fossil-fuel free by 2030. 50 to 60 million cars will have to be replaced, and for what? To end a drought caused by climate change? Explain how electric cars reduce drought in California?

Newsom’s thinking is the weather will improve in California if the State simply reduces fossil fuel usage?

Where will the energy come from? Windmills and solar panels? 

Folks, even just a little bit of critical thinking should tell you what is painfully obvious.

Either they are lying or they truly believe what they are saying. If it is the latter, then world leadership is frighteningly worse than I imagined.

Good night and good luck said the once famous newsman Edwin R Murrow, a warning of corporate oligarchy to come that would simply pull the string behind the scenes, a cabal of international players who are having quite fun screwing the rest of us with charts, environmental mumbo-jumbo and testing,. lot’s of testing.

Can you blame them?

Parting words. Every time you hear the term ‘climate change’ from a news report or some program, assume for the sake of argument it is an untruth Think about what the claim is being made and ask yourself, “how can a carbon molecule, an abundant earth property, cause that to happen?”

The truth shall set you free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s