Climate Change, Control, and the Question of Trust

vanity | September 16, 2025 | CIB-173RDABN

[CIB-173RDABN]

Climate Change, Control, and the Question of Trust

For as long as humans have walked the Earth, we have adapted to the forces of nature. Our species has survived ice ages, scorching droughts, violent storms, and even near-extinction events. We’ve done so not because we controlled nature, but because we learned to live with it — to adjust, to innovate, and to endure. Our greatest strengths have always been our intelligence and our adaptability.

So when we’re told today that climate change represents an existential crisis, one that can only be solved through radical restructuring of our lives, our freedoms, and our economies, it’s not unreasonable to pause and ask a simple question: Why now?

Yes, the climate is changing — no serious person denies that. The Earth’s climate has been in constant motion for millions of years. Polar ice has melted and returned. Oceans have risen and fallen. Ecosystems have shifted and rebalanced. None of this is new. What is new is how the issue of climate change is being used as a justification for sweeping, top-down control over the lives of everyday people.

Governments around the world are using climate rhetoric to impose restrictions that, just decades ago, would have seemed unthinkable. Bans on gas-powered vehicles. Regulations that make traditional heating and cooling unaffordable. Pressure to alter our diets, change how we travel, where we live, what we consume. Meanwhile, those in power continue flying in private jets, building beachfront homes, and investing in carbon-heavy industries. The message to ordinary citizens is clear: “Do as we say, not as we do.”

Many people who express skepticism about this agenda are accused of “denying the science.” But science is not scripture. It is not infallible. It is a process — a tool — carried out by human beings. And human beings can be wrong. They can be influenced. They can be paid. History is full of examples: scientists funded by the tobacco industry who said smoking was safe; nutritionists backed by sugar companies who downplayed the dangers of processed foods; pharmaceutical firms who buried data on addictive drugs. The fact that “science” is cited does not mean the conversation is over — it means the conversation has just begun.

If the last 60 years have taught us anything, it’s that doomsday predictions are often wrong. In the 1970s, we were told global cooling was inevitable. In the 1980s, acid rain was going to destroy agriculture. In the 1990s, the ozone hole was going to collapse the biosphere. Each time, the threat was described as urgent, undeniable, and just around the corner. Each time, sweeping government action was proposed. And each time, the catastrophe either didn’t come — or came in a form far less dramatic than advertised.

Today, climate change is used to justify policies that limit personal freedom, raise costs for working families, and increase government power — all in the name of “saving the planet.” Yet the real threats we face, like decaying infrastructure, unaffordable healthcare, or failing education systems, are often ignored or underfunded. It’s fair to wonder: If the goal is really to protect the future, why not focus on the problems that impact people’s lives right now?

This isn’t denialism — it’s discernment. It’s the refusal to give up liberty in exchange for vague promises. It's a reminder that healthy skepticism is not the enemy of truth — it is the foundation of it.

In the end, people are not afraid of change. They’re afraid of being lied to, of being controlled, of being forced into a future they didn’t choose by people they don’t trust. That’s not climate denial. That’s human nature — and the instinct to survive.

And that instinct, as history shows, is always stronger than fear.

[cgbg]

Solid comments.

I trust scientists as far as I can throw them.

In my book they are about equal in moral character to back alley whores on a Friday night.

Throw them some grant money or a salary and they will say whatever they need to as long as the cash keeps coming.

Bonus: Most of them are arrogant jerks.

[Gen.Blather]

One of the theories on why our ancestors from Africa developed intelligence is due to dramatic and periodic massive climate change. I think it’s every two hundred thousand years, the Strait of Gibraltar slams shut. The Sahara turns into a green forest. Then, the strait opens, and the Sahara becomes an unlivable desert. (Another possible culprit is what is today Central America closing up North and South America, or possibly a combination.)

Living up in the trees became impossible as for much of Africa they vanished over a generation or three. These multiple transitions would affect things like the amount of body hair and how tall and upright our ancestors would become. Taller to see over the grass and upright walkers for the same reason. Those who became more intelligent, which was required in a more dangerous ground dwelling lifestyle, well, those people reproduced, and their traits carried on and improved us all.

My point is even “catastrophic” climate change would simply be something we adjust to. It’s not like we can stop things that cause these types of events. (It’s the Sun, stupid!) The analysis I’ve seen says we could spend every cent the entire world makes, and it wouldn’t affect the temperature by just one degree. So, live for today and we’ll adjust when and if we have to.

[ifinnegan]

“ doomsday predictions are often wrong”

Often?

Try always.

[GOPJ]

Throw them some grant money or a salary and they will say whatever they need to as long as the cash keeps coming.

They work on college campuses that are 98% liberal 'elite'... amid a toxic group think. No chance in hell I would believe them...and I'm sick of taxpayer money going to these people.

[alternatives?]

Government has bought off all the research and judges. Breathing (CO2) is not pollution.

[Carry_Okie]

For as long as humans have walked the Earth, we have adapted to the forces of nature.

Humans have also shaped the forces of nature (by degree), witlessly or otherwise (mostly the former), and on a scale science has yet to incorporate.

[rellic]

The actual problem in America, is Democrats.
Even at that only a small percentage of Democrats are
our problem.
Millions of normal Americans have guns.
It seems only Democrats use guns to
eliminate those they don’t like.
So who is the real problem?
It isn’t guns, or Republicans.
It is the small group of “Liberal”
Democrats.
Not being one to bitch and not present a solution,
I present this to every American Liberal,
A one way ticket to your choice of destination.
Become a citizen of that place and renounce
American citizenship.
I’ll personally buy your ticket and escort you to
wherever/whatever transportation you choose.
Just get the hell out of my country!
Liberals hate America, lets help them go to
where they want to be!

[kawhill]

The phrase “the sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down” comes from Ecclesiastes 1:5 in the Old Testament of the Bible, where it describes the cyclical, restless, and recurring nature of life and the world. This imagery emphasizes that, like the rising and setting sun, generations come and go, and the earth remains, but all things in the world are in perpetual motion, yet nothing truly changes or is new. I get by with that thought.

[marktwain]

I recall talking to a person I supervised. He was a younger, bright, meteorologist.

I told him I thought the science of “global warming” was not very good.

He replied, it did not matter, because all the things that came with “global warming” such as more government control over resources, were all “good”. He did not believe there was any downside.

This is a point of faith to those which believe in government as god on earth.

[Mean Daddy]

I always ask the global warmers, how does writing a check to govt “fix” global warming? How will we know when its “fixed?” Name a govt agency that was disbanded after its core objectives were met.

One only has to look at the demonization of high tobacco taxes, fines thru lawsuits etc. to understand the same crap would happen with global warming.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Often?

Try always.

---

Since I don’t know the entire world history, I can not say “always” there may be a case where a prediction came true.

So “often” remains.

:-)

[Inyo-Mono]

The term “Settled science” often used by climate warming believers is false on its face. There is no such thing as settled science, never has been, never will.

[kosciusko51]

It’s like the Princess Bride

“I could give you my word as a Spaniard,” Inigo said.
“No good,” the man in black replied. “I’ve known too many Spaniards.”

[fruser1]

In the stone age pagan days, the “science” was that you could prevent natural disasters by regularly feeding the god of death with human sacrifices. The expert witch doctors kept it from getting too hungry and unleashing deadly forces that killed many at once.

Nowadays, we no longer feed a god of death with human sacrifice, but we still have experts.

[Empire_of_Liberty]

I think that it’s important to understand that the world’s elites are not just liars, they’re idiots, as well.

Atmospheric CO2 has probably been the greatest Carbon transport mechanism in the Earth’s biosphere since life on it existed. Carbon is a necessary component of all life. Trapping the Carbon in the ground is a great way to die.

The Earth’s fresh water should not be trapped in its polar caps. It has not always been, and the Earth’s flora and fauna have benefited from this.

The purveyors of ”climate change” are only seeking to enrich themselves. They care nothing of the cost to others.

[Tell It Right]

Agree. And we have made adjustments. Just looking at the smaller warming and cooling cycles (meaning not millions of years, but the centuries long cooling drops followed by centuries long warming periods) allows us to stay withing the timeframe that different people groups have had written languages. In other words, we can tell from history (which technically means written) what adjustments were made.

Below are some adjustments people/culture have made that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. During the Little Ice Age (roughly AD 1300 to mid 1800's) Europe adjusted from a mostly grain diet because the grain couldn't handle long droughts followed by damaging rains (life during the warm periods is great, it's the cooling periods that suck). So after Spain took over Peru, the conquistadors brought back to Europe the potato plant and, it could be argued, the potato saved Europe.

2. During the cooling periods cities tend to depopulate in part because a relatively small area of land has too low crop yield to feed them. So they spread out. Bible note: I believe only one famine in the Old Testament occurred during the Era of Judges, which began roughly at the bottom of the small blue dip left of the 3 mark in the graph below (over 3,000 years ago) and temps rose until about 11th century BC at the top of the small red bump to the right of that. The same 11th century that the prophet Samuel anointed Saul. Thus, the Minoan Warming Period corresponds to the Era of Judges, followed by the Era of Kings during the Greek Dark Age Cooling Period.

3. Anglo-Saxons were kicked out of the homeland in Germania during the Dark Age Cooling Period (roughly AD 300 - 900) by the Germanic Goth tribes. The Goths had been kicked out of their homeland from the Huns (forcing the Goths into what was left of the western Roman Empire and destroying it, then pushing them further into Germania and forcing out my Anglo Saxon ancestors). Some say that the Huns did this because climate change (the cooling version) lowered their crop yields and forced them to take over other folks land. Likewise when my Anglo ancestors were forced to Denmark they didn't stay there long. Some say the main reason they took over Britannia was because the land was too marshy and was too hard to grow crops during the Dark Age cooling period.

[FreedomPoster]

This is a good time to bring up Eisenhower’s farewell address.

In the same speech in which he warned of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower warned of Big Science in cahoots with Big Government. See here:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Smart guy, Ike.

[Gen.Blather]

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

[Sacajaweau]

The problem with the "FIX" by Congress...is no matter what we do....there is absolutely no way that anyone can prove that the future climate is the result of whatever we did. The whole concept is stupid.

As stupid as changing the clocks twice a year.

The Universe is "Timeless".