Fear-mongering shadows the so-called “apocalyptic climate change emergency“.
I realise that in saying this, I’m breaking the kind of taboo that’ll get a scientist fired, the average citizen harassed, and any celebrity with a mind of their own cancelled.
Defining terms and questioning narratives don’t appear to be the highest priority for those sucked into the emotional vortex of double C hysterics.
This is why the debate is smashed to pieces; disallowed by quick appeals to oxymorons like “believe the science” or “the science is settled.”
Global climate patterns are complex, and fluid; rain and temperature fluctuate, it’s much more powerful than humanity, and it’s in constant movement. We could say it’s perpetually adjusting and readjusting. It’s what makes life possible.
“Climate Change” seems to be a misleading term that ignores the micro-level plural, “climates”, in favour of the macro singular, “climate.”
When in conversation with a CC fanatic, it’s worth asking then, which of the five climates are in crisis?
Why has the language moved from theoretical anthropogenic Global Warming negatively impacting an alleged [Global] Climate, to the fanatical alarmism of “climate crisis”, “climate emergency” to “climate justice”?
Which of the five climates that make up the global climate need “climate justice”? One climate naturally changing, doesn’t equal an emergency.
Furthermore, what is “climate justice”?
You won’t get a definitive answer.
The popular response will be polar. They’ll quote Al Gore’s cash cow propaganda films, something about sea levels, ice caps melting (which they tend to do naturally anyway), and polar bears dying (which they also tend to do naturally). Then they’ll fog up, and drift into some vague warnings about how asking these kinds of questions makes one a “climate change denier.”
The real answer is, they don’t really know. They just say so because it’s catchy, popular, and feels right to do so.
This is evidenced by the quagmire of emotional responses, filled with panic, hatred of opposing viewpoints, asinine “follow the science” religious assertions and ambiguous catch-phrases built on conjecture.
All of this suggests that “apocalyptic climate change” isn’t about the environment, Global climate, nor the climates.
It’s about money, politics, and power. It’s about changing patterns of behaviour to stimulate automatic responses, not changing weather patterns. Not science. Not people, not the climates, and most certainly not about preserving the environment from deliberate, and accidental pollution.
Swaying public opinion to profit from fear is easy. Fear is more of a motivator than freedom.
Activists – those among the fray who are more akin to eco-fascists than genuine environmentalists – know this, and that’s why they milk every dollar and vote they can from it.
Australian Geologist, Ian Plimer agrees: “It’s a game of power. There is no climate emergency. Climate always changes.”
In his ground-breaking book, ‘How to Get expelled from School’ he adds, “human induced global warming has nothing to do with climate or the environment. It’s a method to take money out of your pockets.” [i]
“Climate Change” is about who holds power, and how much power they can harvest from it, not what powers our electricity.
Danish author, and sceptic, Bjorn Lomborg came to the same conclusion. Not once, but twice.
In January 2020, Lomborg accused activists of “exploiting the tragic Australian bush fires” by using the word “unprecedented” in order to falsely claim that the bush fires were “near-proof of a climate emergency.”
Lomborg’s well referenced source material showed that burnt areas from 1997-2020 was in decline.
Hence Lomborg’s refutation of Climate Change hysterics: “[this graph] suggests two things. First, that the area burnt in Australia is not increasing and likely decreasing. This result is similar to what we see across the world — lower, not higher burnt area. Second, the current Australian fire season in terms of area burnt is not unprecedented compared to the recent past.”
Lomborg revisited the data this year; updating it with new information that refuted claims from activists and vindicated his original scepticism. The conclusion: the 2019-2020 Australian bushfires were not unprecedented.
“The biggest Australian fire is the 1974-75 fire, mostly documented by satellite. It burned 117 million hectares in Central Australia or 15.2% of Australia in one year. Almost 4x the area burned in 2019-20.”
Reflecting on a reading of Global Fire Data analysis Lomborg said:
Fires burned 10% of Australia’s land surface on average every year in the 20th century. In this century, it burned 6% (2001-19)
We now have the data for 2019-20, the year with “Australia ablaze”: 4% (3.95%) Yes, tragedies: Much more fire close to where people live (NSW and Victoria).
But we were told “Australia burns” and “this is what a climate crisis looks like.” No. Australia had one of its lowest areas burned in the last 120 years.
[The area of] Australia burned in 2019-20 [is] inconsistent with climate change. The total burn should have been *larger* — when in fact it was *much smaller*…
Lomborg also highlighted the climate crazy propaganda, writing that the “fires [were] inconsistent with climate impact.” The data doesn’t back “bad media coverage, and misleading graphics [that] pushed the idea that the Australian continent was ablaze.”
Lomborg’s proof that we’re being manipulated by activists, within, and outside, both government, and Legacy Media, is staggeringly blatant.
These organisations are complicit in orchestrating a shared narrative that conditions the reflexes of gullible citizens to cry “wolf”, hate on their neighbour, and dehumanise those with an opposing viewpoint when so commanded.
The “apocalyptic climate change” political narrative is built on an organised myth.
Social engineers clued-into behavioural science know that people will choose order over chaos, even if the cost of order is the absolute surrender of their personal freedom, and individual responsibilities; i.e. civil liberties and civil rights.
Weather patterns are as dynamic, as the climates they support. How the climates interact, and change, is a natural phenomenon.
Using the 80/20 rule, in general, speculative science, the science of approximation, only gets weather predictions right up to 80% of the time, it’s easy to conclude that they could be wrong about “Apocalyptic Climate Change.”
To quote Caldron Pool writer, Matthew Littlefield,
‘Just a reminder for all you east coasters here in Australia, that climate experts predicted drier warmer weather. As we enjoy this cooler wetter weather let’s remember that climate experts have about the same batting average with their predictions as doomsday prophets from bad churches:
Taking in the advice of Plimer and Lomborg, by all appearances “Apocalyptic climate change” is a tool and idea preached with the aim of wresting control of constitutional democracies away from the people.
When our politicians start sounding like beauty pageant contestants, citing “Fight Climate Change” in the same way as “World Peace,” you know they’re signalling towards virtue, not science.
Building legislation on this, in order to score easy political points is reprehensibly irresponsible.
Hell isn’t a climate change apocalypse, hell is an activist-induced inferno triggered by reckless, and reactionary legislation, written on the run, in the ink of hyperreactive climate change hysterics.
[i] Plimer, I. 2011, How to Get Expelled From School: A guide to Climate Change for pupils, parents & punters, Connor Court Publishing (p.18)