Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
If the climate fearmongers were honest, they would have a REAL debate in an open forum with those scientists who disagree with them completely lacking the presence of coercion.
But they don’t and they won’t. To them, “managing climate change” is a tool for gaining totalitarian control over the masses. . . world wide.
Sunspots? How about the fact that one good CME would send the equivalent of MILLIONS of atomic bombs of energy toward our planet. Do you suppose that would change the climate?
The millionaires and billionaires need to sell their coastal real estate now.
Beat the rush!
True or False - “Solving an existential crisis requires special taxation of carbon and a regulated brokered exchange for carbon credits, creating a new class of ultra-wealthy globalists.”
Fact: if human activity were causing such a crisis, the first step would be to limit population growth on the planet and cease a great deal of economic activity. The solution wouldn’t be to shift more money to the masses to an elite class of connected wealthy corporatists.
Quite clearly the case of building a straw man argument only to tear it down.
The questions being asked are wrong. Of course the Sun warms the planet but why are variations in its activity not part of climate models?
The issue is that we’re all supposed to be dead already - per the countless claims over the decades. Nobody can claim to know the ‘perfect temperature’ and what the temperature would be doing if we weren’t here.
The problem I have is that every ‘solution’ to climate change fearmongering are communist/socialist policies. If you want me to live in a world with a lower standard of living, which is what we’re talking about if we don’t have cheap, sustainable, and abundant energy, then you’d better present a case that is so indisputable that it can be scientifically PROVEN. Which they can’t.
I get the argument “what if you’re wrong? If we’re wrong then there’s no harm. If you’re wrong the earth dies.”. Ok, so unless you want mass starvation and an existence in misery then why is nuclear not an option? Even if temporary? We know why - because it’s just another ‘emergency’ excuse to impose government control over our lives, just like COVID.
On the one hand we have climate tyranny on the other it is medical tyranny. Both are examples of the government trying to extend their power into peoples lives violating their inalienable rights. COVID has provided the perfect excuse for the government to declare that they can decide the Constitution can be suspended per THEIR DECISION, TO THE DEGREE THEY DECIDE, AND OPEN ENDED WITH NO DECLARATION OF WHEN IT ENDS. It could have been ANY new virus, no matter how bad or not. What metrics decide how ‘severe’ something is before the government assumes such authority? What thresholds must be crossed of such metrics to trigger their authority? There are none, it is just arbitrary at their discretion - at least that is the assertion. Except WE THE PEOPLE never gave that power to them.
Therefore, the answer can only be that they NEVER has such authority - it is for the people to decide. If COVID were truly an airborne Ebola, where masses of people were dropping dead in the street, we wouldn’t need government to be enacting ‘emergency powers’ to change our behavior.
Consensus isn’t science either. This article is nothing more than a ‘shame you hit piece’ because people don’t believe it all - red meat for arrogant know-it-alls that can prove nothing. It is to reinforce that notion that if you’re not buying what they’re selling the only reason can be that you’re ignorant - not because we believe there may be alternate agendas we won’t accept.
This is the exact type of fraud our kids are being catechized with in government schools. It inevitably leads to feelings of “If we don’t vote Democrat, we are all going to DIE!!!”
“The IPCC report was produced by the unanimous agreement of every country signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That’s a lot of countries [197, to be precise].”
Stupid “logic”
During the 15th century in Europe, The majority of people believed the world was flat, They were all wrong.
Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
So, what caused the globe to experience climate changes before this stability set in? How unstable was the climate before that stability set in? Were there wild fluctuations in that unstable period before stability was realized? How does the current instability compare to the previous period of instability?
This idea has been repeatedly shown to be untrue. The sun’s radiation does indeed fluctuate, with sunspots varying in their levels of activity. But these changes in the sun’s radiation can’t account for the increase in temperatures we’ve seen over the past decades. The notion is impossible to defend scientifically.
If the sun plays no part in warming, then what caused warming or cooling for the previous unstable climate to realize the 10,000 year stable climate period, and what allowed the stable period climate to remain stable?