Today, I looked over a climate article I spotted on Twitter and found one of the comments there intriguing. The article’s author, Chris Kenny, summarizes his writing with, “Like a judge turned advocate, or umpire turned player, the ABC’s Media Watch has become a spruiker in one of the nation’s most crucial policy debates — climate change.”
One of the commenters to that article, named Michael, wrote an interesting criticism that calls for a climate change middle ground:
“I quite like reading Chris Kenny’s pieces. However, I wonder if he realises he is making the same mistake he is accusing Media Watch of making. Everyone knows that Media Watch has a political left bias. Chris replies with a political right bias. Neither left nor right are necessarily correct here. Somehow we have to merge the two to get at the facts. The only thing that matters is what the facts are, shorn of any political bias.”
The following is an open reply to that commenter.
Critique on Climate Change Middle Ground
Michael, your climate change middle ground sort of makes sense. But like the IPCC’s insane logic, the average of 100 wrong climate models does not make a right one.
There may be some truth in both sides, but mixing them together without discrimination can prove futile. We need to proceed with caution with such a climate change middle ground, because the middle isn’t always right, either.
Some people are more selfish than others, wouldn’t you agree? Some people who have $Billion$ enjoy the power that goes with it. Some enjoy that power a bit too much. Power plus selfishness can lead to all manner of corruption. This is simple human nature. Because of such selfishness, conspiracies are dirt common. Turning a lie into “truth” is a good marketing trick, and we have lots of expert marketers in recent years.
The “popular” thing these days is that Global Warming is bad and evil “carbon” is the cause of it. They don’t even have the decency to use its real name. It’s not “carbon” (soot), but carbon dioxide (the gas of life). In a subtle sense, they have shown themselves to be anti-life. Harsh? Hold that thought for a moment.
CO2 is not and never has been a pollutant. CO2 does not and never has caused significant global warming. Quite the opposite: significant, prolonged warming causes increases in CO2, with an 800 year lag. Why? Because it takes a long time for all that air warmth to heat up the oceans where the extra CO2 resides. Warmth forces the dissolved CO2 out of the water.
CO2 increases have been fairly linear since the end of WW2, but average global temperatures have been down, up, and down again. Here’s the satellite data uncorrupted by Climate-Gate-style fudging (Spencer and Christy):
Incredibly (compared to popular media bias), Global Warming is good. Warming means more evaporation, more clouds, more rain, more life. During the far warmer Holocene Optimum (~8000 years ago), the Sahara was green.
Cooling down the planet means less evaporation, less rain, failed crops and mass starvation. Yet, governments (including American) have already started programs of geoengineering to cool down the planet. Patents have been filed for years on aluminum, strontium and other particulate spraying to reflect sunlight in order to accomplish just that. Ironic that we’re cooling down the planet while we’re still in an Ice Age. If the Holocene suddenly ends, then we have 80,000 years of glacial conditions that will see Chicago, New York and Paris under a mile of ice and human populations dwindling into the thousands.
Hysteria Based on Delusion
This whole “climate change” hysteria is as strange as the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” Once you think through this information, it’s obvious that the Emperor is entirely naked and has been duped by the tailors. Who are these tailors?
Some proponents of the “climate change” hysteria claim that “deniers” are paid by Big Oil. What they never seem to look at is that Biggest Oil Rockefellers are pushing the other side—the warming hysteria. One look on their Foundation website shows this. Corporations are pushing both sides of the debate, but to what end?
Whoever is behind any debate is a non-issue. Argumentum ad populum. Whoever pushes an idea has no bearing on the truth of the idea. It may have something to do with motive, though.
If you look at the history of the Rockefellers, and psychopathic elite like them, they have long had an interest in eugenics and population control (à la Malthus). They have the Scrooge mentality of eliminating the excess population. These excess people (us) are merely ants or cattle that need to be culled—removed from eating up “their” resources.
Some ordinary people have a hard time accepting that such arrogance can exist, but history is full of examples.
Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” He has been frequently misquoted without the word “tends.” Notice also how his statement includes “almost always.” But his carefully worded statement is far more accurate than the misquotations. Power, by itself, is benign. What makes it a force of corruption is the selfishness that individuals bring along. The more selfish the individual, the more the corruption. Someone like Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha) or Yehoshua of Nazareth (Christ) would bring zero selfishness. Thus, Jesus walking on water and stopping the storm did not turn his head toward power madness.
A More Effective Climate Change Middle Ground
Climate has always changed. There’s nothing spooky or scary about this fact. But calmer, friendlier weather exists in warmer climates. Why? Because violent storms are driven by temperature differences—not merely by heat. During an Ice Age, like the one we’ve experienced for 2.6 million years, we have great temperature differences, between poles and equator. Melt the poles and that thermal potential practically disappears.
But science does have a possible answer to climate change. The real driver isn’t CO2. Check out the Svensmark study. Their graph of solar activity has a near-perfect match with global average temperature.
Groups like NASA use Ground-Based data which is highly suspect (Watts). On NASA’s own site, they don’t use the satellite graph! Incredible. But that is, I suppose, being “politically correct,” but scientifically corrupt—far from any climate change middle ground, and far from the truth.
Kenny, Chris (Associate Editor). (August 1, 2015). “Media Watch has a climate change obsession.” The Australian. Retrieved on August 2, 2015 from http://theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/media-watch-has-a-climate-change-obsession/story-fn8qlm5e-1227465421784
Spencer, R., and Christy, J. (June, 2015). “Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures.” Retrieved July 26, 2015 from http://drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Svensmark, H., et al. (2011). Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery. Retrieved on March 15, 2015 from https://youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&index=40&list=PLnjuwFo2a6mOfPciw85AVmhZIRMiiMrlO
Watts, Anthony. (June 15, 2015). “Climate Fraud – NOAA’s Global Temperature Dataset.” Retrieved on July 27, 2015 from https://youtube.com/watch?v=pjlPvwRP-fM&index=82&list=PLnjuwFo2a6mOfPciw85AVmhZIRMiiMrlO
This article was originally published 2015:0802 on RodMartinJr.com.