There is something awfully wrong with “climate science.” Its predictions have not materialised. When your theory does not enable you to predict with accuracy, then the thing to do is go back and amend the theory for the simple reason that there are errors in it. When the “authorities” putting forward an erroneous theory simply keep insisting on the theory or even make up bogus “evidence” to support it or whip up a hysteria in which frightened people stop looking criutically at what they are being told and generally refuse to amend it, then one should look for the vested interests who have a stake in propagandising the fallacious theory.
There certtainly are things about our environment that need to be addressed. Pollution is one of them, the potential loss of bio diversity is another, deforestation is yet another and don’t even get me started on the deliberate contamination of the environment by the biochemical industry or the placing of the food chain at risk by the likes of Monsanto. The “climate change” propaganda is looking more and more like a diodge by corporate interests to distract us from the damage they themselves are doing to the planet.
Good, analytical analysis of problems or potential problems is necessary, as is sound husbandry of the planet – an approach innately superior to plunder – in order to help it flourish in good health.
But the hysteria being whipped up by proxies for the globalists, designed to instil fear, stifle voices of reason and soften up the citizenry for an erosion of their liberties is certanly not required. The truth of the matter is that the current wave of it smacks of desperation, an effort to keep the whole climate change gig on the rails as more and more people wise up to the agendum behind it.- Steve
Highest CO2 levels recorded in 3 million years still don’t budge global temperatures… official climate change narrative collapses in the face of real science
If, as they claim, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than they’ve been at any point during the past three million years, and if higher carbon dioxide levels raise temperatures dramatically as they also claim, then we should be seeing a spike in global temperatures – and that just isn’t happening.
Instead, it looks like atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t impacting the climate very much at all. Their arguments that carbon dioxide is the main driver of Earth’s climate fall apart when you realize that the climate isn’t nearly as warm as it was the last time CO2 levels were this high. If that were true, the sea levels would be 65 feet higher and most of the ice on Greenland would be gone. Do you see any forests in Antarctica?
In fact, the opposite is happening. NASA data shows that the ocean levels around the world have just dropped for two years in a row. A different NASA study shows that the rise in snow accumulation in Antarctica is adding enough ice to outweigh the losses of thinning glaciers. That study showed that the Antarctic ice sheet noted net gains of 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001 and 82 billion tons of ice a year from 2003 to 2008.
There’s also the fact that the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, which was once used by climate change alarmists to show how global warming is melting glaciers, has reversed course and is now actually growing back thanks to unusually cold ocean currents.
Carbon dioxide is nothing to fear
Put quite simply, carbon dioxide is not a poison that we should fear. Instead, what we should fear is a dramatic reduction in it because it’s what gives our planet life. Without carbon dioxide, we wouldn’t have plants, which means there wouldn’t be oxygen and humans would eventually die out.
In the past, carbon dioxide levels have been significantly higher than they are now, yet life still managed to exist and plants, not surprisingly, thrived. Indeed, experts say that if carbon dioxide levels drop too much, many plants and other vegetal species would become extinct.
Another fact that is often conveniently overlooked is that global temperature analysis across several centuries has shown that the Earth would actually have warmed by the same amount that it has even in the absence of industrialization.
In that study, researchers Dr. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy found that global temperatures, which have risen by 1 degree Celsius since the 1830s when the Industrial Age began, would have risen by that amount even if human industrialization had not occurred. Their research involved using artificial neural networks to determine rainfall and estimate global temperatures.
Unfortunately, most people simply don’t have the scientific background needed to understand these basic concepts, and the government and media use this as another way to control people’s lives on the pretense of “protecting the planet.”
Sources for this article include:
The above article comes from Natural News. Please visit Natural News. It is a gold mine of fascinating, insightful, thought provoking and useful articles and news.
Disclaimer: UKReloaded.com contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.