By Foster Gamble
Climate change may be the hottest topic on the table, reaching a level of religious zealotry on both sides of the issue. It’s remarkable that something with such dire implications can be so void of respectful dialogue and intellectual rigor.
I have personally had hundreds of conversations about the climate: if it’s changing, who and what is responsible, what we can do, and how can we even know what source of information to trust? There seem to be corporate or government shills on both sides, each with an agenda to promote. So how do we wade through the self-serving propaganda to discern the truth? And how do we evaluate the various perspectives without our emotional reactions or social pressure clouding our judgment?
Following is a compilation of many of the conversations I’ve had, reflecting various perspectives and data, to help broaden the dialogue and empower individuals everywhere to add their own critical thinking to this pressing and consequential issue. If you can respectfully correct or augment what is presented here, please do. The point of this is to get to the truth so that we can all take the most effective action.
Let’s start with what is probably the most common question:
Is there reliable evidence that the Earth is warming in a risky or anomalous way?
Some say it is unprecedented and verging on catastrophe.
Here is Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that Al Gore featured in his Inconvenient Truth.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says there is no recent slowdown in global warming, while the Space and Science Research Corporations says “the Earth is presently in a sustained phase of global cooling.” Still other experts agree that we are in a “pause” — without significant warming — for the last 18 years. Many suggest that conflicting data about whether or not the planet is warming is why the term “global warming” has changed to “climate change” (since a climate is always changing, that’s more reliable than “warming”). Some have moved on to calling it “climate disruption” or even “climate collapse.”
Some of us are experiencing extreme heat (and drought) in our towns, like where I live in Santa Cruz, CA. But I know others have been experiencing extreme cold, like in the upper Midwest and Northeast of America. So we have to do more than look at our own neighborhoods to see the true larger trends.
Some researchers look at surface temperatures, some at ice cores, some tree rings and more recently satellite measurements of the larger atmosphere. What do the different collection techniques reveal?
Here is the big picture on historic temperatures. Much of the data from these various sources indicates that our planet has been warmer in the past, during eras before factories, power plants and cars. Check this out:
Between 1990 and 2001, these prior warmer periods were cut off of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) researchers’ graphs. In 1998, a paper was written by Mann and his associates that highlighted the hockey stick image and significantly heightened concern about dramatic planetary warming. However, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick started digging into the raw data and exposed errors and manipulations that completely invalidated the upward curve at the end. The data processing was so skewed that even random data would show a hockey stick shape. Scientists won’t come to his defense and the case is inexplicably undecided years later (as of 2016). (Of course, resolving the case against Mann could be devastating to the crumbling credibility of the climate scare movement.)
Here’s another confusing and important contradiction in Gore’s presentation of the correlation between rise in CO2 (carbon dioxide) and rise in temperature. It has been pointed out that the graph itself, on closer inspection, shows that CO2 follows Earth temperature, often by many decades, instead of the other way around.
But I read that 97% of scientists agree that humans are responsible for causing the planet to warm?
I found that 97 percent claim to be very surprising, so I looked into it. Some sources are showing evidence that the number is actually more like 0.3%. In fact, according to reliable research and documentation, there appear to be a lot of dissenting opinions from climatologists worldwide, and even some distorted data to promote the different perspectives.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
If the climate has been warming and cooling over thousands of years, what could be affecting the change in temperature?
Every system in nature is embedded in larger systems. To understand the behavior of the smaller one, intellectual rigor requires that we at least look to changes in the larger. The short-term warming makes more sense when we look at the larger time-span. Given that the Sun is obviously the major source for heating the Earth and the rest of the solar system, we should be at least asking what might be the impact of changes in the Sun on our temperature, and in turn, how might the Sun’s ever-changing position in the Milky Way galaxy be affecting its temperature? Dr. Bruce West of the Army Research Office writes “changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to … the short term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.”
If the Sun were the major contributor to recent warming, then other planets might be expected to be warming as well, right?
Yes, in fact evidence of warming of Jupiter and Mars has been observed, and it makes no sense that our CO2 pollution on Earth would have any effect on distant planets. Of course there are other researchers who argue that the warming of the other planets must be due to factors other than the sun — like “orbital variations, changes in reflectance and even volcanic eruptions.” Recently it’s being reported that there seems to be a “solar shutdown” — a period of very little sunspot activity that is reminding scientists of the patterns leading up to the “Maunder Minimum” — an extreme cooling period in the latter half of the 17th century.
Why would researchers risk their reputation to present artificial results?
Money, and lots of it. As we said in THRIVE, when a story doesn’t make sense, “follow the money.” Many scientists and PR firms are paid large sums to make the case both for and against Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). So it’s up to us to seek the truth, by means of rational, thorough investigation, empirical evidence and common sense.
So why hasn’t the public been exposed to this type of thinking?
Maurice Strong, the man who introduced the idea of “global warming” at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, set the initial charge to the IPCC in a way that completely ignored anything about potential impacts of the Sun, choosing to focus only on potential human causes — Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Why would he do something so anti-scientific as that?
Strong, a long time agent of the Rockefeller cartel, had a clear directive to organize human efforts against a common enemy, and that enemy was chosen, by elites in the Club of Rome (founded by David Rockefeller), to be “global warming.” This was spelled out in their document, Limits to Growth, in 1972.
Why were they seeking a “common enemy?”
Fear is the best motivator to convince people to give up their resources and freedom to battle some identified evil for “the good of the group.” Those seeking to consolidate power globally had tried a “global cooling” scare back in the 1970s.
Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, a global cooling promoter let some unusual truth slip when he told Discover magazine in 1989, “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
But then the climate started warming up and spoiled that plan.
In 1987, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress, Edmund de Rothschild stated that CO2 is the cause of global warming, and that combating it needs money (ours). He founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. This was to be the bank for the UN to use to ultimately collect a global carbon tax.
UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in 1988, was the first to put vast amounts of money on the table that would go to researchers who could provide evidence of “global warming”.
But the planet is obviously warming. I have seen countless clips of glaciers retreating over time and dropping huge chunks of ice into the oceans, and polar bears stranded on ice flows. I have read that the Arctic and Antarctic ice is disappearing.
So have I. Let’s take these one at a time. Polar bears don’t get stranded on ice flows. They are prodigious swimmers that can traverse large swaths of open ocean. They climb out onto small patches of ice from time to time, and pictures of this in the context of claims of climate collapse seem very touching, but they prove nothing other than an implied agenda. Glaciers are always “calving” — dropping ice cliffs — wherever the cold ice meets the warmer ocean.
Glaciers which retreat for years, on the other hand, are a genuine indication that the local climate, at least, is warming. So we need to genuinely look into that evidence to see if they are retreating everywhere or just in some areas, and if this is true cause for alarm or part of normal cycles that have been going on for millennia.
There is conflicting and confusing data on the growth or shrinkage of ice at the poles. It’s tough to make sense of it. Here is some of it for your consideration:
Others say the ice is growing at both poles in ways that implode global warming theories and Al Gore’s prediction that the North Pole could be ice free as early as 2013. In May, 2014 the Guardian reported that the “collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet has already begun.” Apparently the mainstream media — NBC, the New York Times, CNN and more, didn’t notice that the article went on to say the predicted catastrophic sea level rise is “still several centuries off and potentially 1,000 years away.”
Some, including NASA, say the Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic ice is growing.
The potential for anomalous release of huge amounts of methane from under melting permafrost in the Arctic would apparently be a very serious cascading event, accelerating greenhouse effects. We need to take this possibility very seriously, but that includes a realistic assessment of the nature of melting patterns and handling the science with more grounded balance than in this article which claims “Global Extinction within one Human Lifetime as a Result of a Spreading Atmospheric Arctic Methane Heat wave and Surface Firestorm.”
Is there any actual evidence that scientists manipulated their data to get a particular outcome?
There have been extensive revelations through leaked emails of fraudulent data distortion and withholding at the University of East Anglia — the major source of interpretation of temperature data. This turned into the so-called “Climategate” incident. Thousands of emails are now available which unveil the unethical and un-scientific practices of a few key players in the effort to shape the data to a political agenda rather than truth.
Here are a couple of excerpts with notes from editor John Costella:
September 19, 1996: email 0843161829
Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that… I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
October 9, 1997: email 0876437553
Just months before the UNFCCC’s Third Conference of Parties (COP III), the critical Kyoto meeting of December 1997 which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, … in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
November 16, 1999: email 0942777075
That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email which generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science.
Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [emphasis added]
This ideological crusade rather than scientific investigation shows up on both sides of the issue.
Are there any scientists from the “inside” of various institutions who have come forward to admit to or expose any of this sort of behavior?
Richard Tol of the University of Sussex has participated in the work of the IPCC since the early 1990s. He has removed his name from the IPCC’s fifth assessment because it had become ”too alarmist.” “The panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”
A fellow panelist, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton, echoes Tol’s concerns, “There have been occasions where government interventions, by causing omissions, have diluted IPCC filings.” He believes the climate is changing and humans are the primary cause, but still chose to go public with startling reflections on how “the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific…”
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group recently admitted that the estimate given for the total number of polar bears in the Arctic was simply a qualified guess given to “satisfy public demand.”
The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has gone public with his warning that climate change is a ruse. “…The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook,” he said, adding that the UN is against capitalism and freedom and wants to create a “new world order.”
OK, but there are always disgruntled individuals. Are there any significant numbers of experts who disagree with what the mainstream media likes to call the “consensus” about humans causing disastrous climate change?
In 2008, to debunk the so-called “consensus,” more than 650 international scientists signed a report dissenting over man-made global warming claims. These included many current and former members of the UN IPCC and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
The same year more than 31,000 scientists across the US, including 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science and environment signed a petition rejecting the assumption that human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s environment.
I can see that some scientists would debunk AGW to get paid by oil companies who want to continue to pollute the skies with impunity, but, on the other side, why would anyone want to get scientists to produce data that would exaggerate global warming?
In THRIVE, we revealed the Global Domination Agenda in great detail. This is the plan by the would-be controllers to establish a one-world totalitarian government with the bankers in charge.
It sounds like some fictional James Bond film. But even if there were people willing to falsify science and media for money, how would that possibly serve this so-called vast global conspiracy? How would it work?
To gain complete control, they would need to convince enough people that it is vital that a new system be authorized to transcend and obsolete sovereign nations.
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” — Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in TIME, July 20, 1992.
Every government is dependent on involuntary taxation to support its operation, so the elite who would want to be in charge would need a new “legalized” structure to ensure that the entire human species is taxed to pay for it. Just demanding such a change outright would cause worldwide revolution. So instead the masses need to be convinced that it is in our best interest, in fact vital to our survival. This is where regimes and secret societies use the Hegelian dialectic — the “Strategy of Tension” described by Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine, also called “Problem, Reaction, Solution” by David Icke in THRIVE. Enter Maury Strong to introduce the common enemy (the “Problem”) on behalf of these controllers.
So a world-wide effort is launched to convince the people that our existence is threatened by the phenomenon of climate change that humans are causing and that we should be very afraid (Reaction) and our only hope is to enforce coordinated global action to reverse it (Solution).
Maury Strong uses the Rockefeller created and funded United Nations to be the front for creating scientific “consensus” that Earth is drastically warming and it has nothing to do with the sun or any geo-engineering. Scientists rarely get funded who dissent from this story.
But the Rockefellers are oil magnates. Wouldn’t curbing carbon emissions hurt their interests?
The Rockefeller cartel is now fundamentally built around banking. International bankers stand to benefit most from the carbon tax, cap and trade and a one-world government. As well, the consolidation of power and increased regulations drives smaller companies out of business and keeps developing countries from developing.
Speaking at the U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
It was former USSR communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev (who co-wrote the UN Earth Charter with Maury Strong) who said in 1996, “the threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
Simultaneously the United Nations is used to front a scheme to promote climate change as the reason to take away property from individuals, tightly control their use of resources, herd them into dense urban vertical enclaves and further socialize the authority of the state over education, transportation, manufacturing, communication, media, justice etc.
How could a few possibly hope to impose so much control over everybody else?
This was called UN Agenda 21 and I covered the history and intent in this blog. The new updated version of this was just promoted by the Pope (the church once again in cahoots with the state) in his September UN speech as UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Here’s a useful “translation” of the lofty, benevolent sounding generalizations that make up its 17 goals. It describes bluntly the agenda hidden within like armies in the Trojan horse. Obama (“The debate is settled. Climate Change is real.”) and many other government rulers have joined in to the effort to establish legal grounds and confiscatory rights for a one-world government — the New World Order — at the upcoming Climate Summit in Paris in November 2015.
Socialize the masses by taking control of the means of production and distribution, while corporatizing and protecting profits from legal redress through the fake “free trade” agreements like TPP and TTIP. Then wrap it all under the first one world government authority in history, set to be imposed on the world in Paris in November. This agenda is as clearly demonstrated in current events as the many other aspects we laid out in THRIVE, and which are only becoming more obvious and confirmed.
We stated in THRIVE that the globalists are seeking the creation of a one-world cashless currency to give themselves ultimate control over money itself. The government subsidized “smart grid” is a major piece of that. So-called “smart meters” are not only dangerous to health with their radiation, and intended as surveillance devices that will be monitoring every household device and even human movement within homes, but they also provide a means to limit or terminate the carbon energy use of any person or enterprise.
Let’s see how the smart grid fits together with other key pieces of the control agenda.
The Carbon Tax
In 2010, then Greek prime minister George Papandreou shocked many around the world by publicly saying that there may need to be new Europe-wide forms of taxation to help pay for the bail-outs that will be needed by the growing number of crashing economies in the Euro-zone. His suggestion included “carbon dioxide taxes” which “could provide important revenues and resources for funding such a [bail-out] mechanism.”
British Columbia, on the other hand, claims their Carbon Tax has successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions in a stable economy.
Carbon Cap and Trade Markets
The mainstream magazine Scientific American has promoted Carbon Markets as the way to limit climate change without damaging the world economy. Nine US states joined together in 2008 to create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI. They claim success in reducing emissions and helping to fund energy efficient investments, new clean energy sources and rebates to ensure no harmful effects of the program.
These carbon taxes and rigged markets sound good to many, but so did the Federal Reserve as a way to stabilize the economy and the Patriot Act as a way to make us more secure.
Is there more to these schemes than meets the eye?
Why would someone like Al Gore, who spent his entire political career shilling for the coal and nuclear industries, suddenly have such an epiphany about the environment? Why would he discourage developing countries from access to fossil fuels while maintaining several mansions and flying around on private jets? What do we find when we follow the money? We find that Gore (as well as Maury Strong) stood to make huge profits from his carbon swaps until the Chicago Climate Exchange fizzled in 2010. (Obama was a board member of the group that funded it.) We find that Cap and Trade will accelerate the takeover of the economy and further the concentration of wealth among the well-placed financiers. And it will not accomplish what is needed in terms of environmental protection, even though that is their justification for it.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Lord Christopher Monckton has been one of the primary voices waking people up across the world to the hidden agendas for control that are behind the good sounding concerns for the environment. Here is a compelling presentation of the propaganda as well as the facts that it hides. And here are several slides from his presentation:
Imagine the combination of the “smart grid” control system with a Carbon Tax (which has already proven in Australia to be so damaging to small companies that it was abandoned) and the Cap and Trade scheme (which allows major corporations to buy their way out of restrictions on their polluting while crippling developing countries and smaller companies.)
Observing all these interlocking initiatives can help clarify how big the incentive is for the globalists to suppress “New Energy” technologies that would render the fossil fuel industry virtually obsolete.
If fossil fuels contain energy from animals and the animals got it from plants, which in turn gathered it from the Sun…where does the Sun get its energy from? Seems the obvious answer is that it is drawing it from space itself — the Plenum. Many New Energy devices skip these interim steps and access the ambient energy by which we are surrounded. Once again, expanding our context can provide us with workable insights and solutions from nature.
It’s important to see how control of energy is not just for maximizing profits but also for controlling people. For individuals drawn to this kind of behavior, there is never enough control to make them feel secure, so, literally, world domination becomes, for them, a natural and logical goal. Most of them have been trained since childhood (Political Ponerology) that “There are two kinds of people in the world…those who are controlled and those who are in control. Which do you want to be?”
But there is a real problem with pollution, right?
Yes, indeed. Miners suffer and die from black lung disease. Soot from coal power plants hangs in a black cloud spreading acid rain and asthma over neighboring communities.
People in China are choking on carbon pollution so thick many wear masks on most days.
Our soils and rivers the world over are toxified to dangerous levels that are limiting food supplies and drinking water as well as killing species.
This has to be addressed, as is now happening in many communities. But the fact that humans cause pollution and need to stop that does not mean that humans are causing climate change or that anomalous global warming is even happening. That appears to be an unsupported leap.
Pollution can be addressed through prosecuting companies and individuals for putting dangerous health hazards in the air that we share. Air is part of the commons and it is our individual right for it to be clean. Holding polluters accountable is truly a critical step. Allowing them to trade their pollution with Cap and Trade is both ineffective and immoral. Cleaning the emissions is expensive, so prices on fuel and heating would necessarily rise. That way users share in the needed reform, corporations aren’t given a free ride or even subsidized to dump their waste in the commons and individuals will need to be responsible for their decisions that affect us all. When polluters and consumers are held responsible, cleaner alternatives will become even more attractive and there will even be incentive for corporations and governments to allow and participate in the release of “New Energy” devices that draw energy right from space without pollution or radiation. Fortunately, this is now happening without government suppression in India. The Tewari over-unity generator we referred to in THRIVE, is apparently now finally about to be allowed out to the public.
Despite what many claim about nuclear power being clean energy, because it doesn’t emit carbon pollution, nuclear is the most dangerous source of power in history. The risk is so imminent and lethal, as we have seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima, that no independent company will insure the plants. Therefore they would not exist except for governments taking taxes from their people to subsidize the industry, especially to reap the dubious rewards of weapons-grade plutonium to keep making the bombs that threaten all life on Earth.
In a debate with Alex Epstein, Bill McKibben, renowned global warming advocate and founder of 350.org, lists various compelling disasters that he predicts from climate change: hot, sour and breathless oceans, melting of the poles, agricultural collapse, extinction of species, flooding of coastal communities, negative impacts to public health and GDP, risks to national security and to political freedom due to disasters leading to more centralized authority.
I believe Mr. McKibben is very sincere, and these are all very serious issues that demand of us several important lines of inquiry. First, if these disasters are actually going to happen because of human caused warming — and we can’t stop it — where are the discussions and planning for that? The same question applies if humans are not causing warming. Is it really safe to put all our eggs in any one belief basket and also assume that we can personally forestall disaster? Furthermore, will Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax actually solve these problems? If we were having televised, respectful, informed debates, we could be better sorting facts from fear-mongering, unpacking a spectrum of scenarios and planning for them.
Second, virtually all of McKibben’s arguments are based on computer MODELS, not on actual evidence. The Earth’s climate is apparently way too complicated to model accurately as virtually every model has turned out to be significantly wrong. Here are some glaring examples.
In 1971, famous futurist Paul Erlich predicted, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” and in 1974 he wrote, “America’s economic joyride is coming to an end: there will be no more cheap, abundant energy, no more cheap abundant food.” This got a great deal of press for the climate movement and for his career. What we haven’t seen is Erlich and the scientific community publicly acknowledging that he has now been proven drastically wrong.
John Holdren, a protégé of Ehrlich who serves as science adviser to President Barack Obama, had a particularly dire prediction in 1986: “It is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.
In 2015, the University of Alabama’s John Christy presented the following graph — showing a striking gap between predicted global warming and what really happened.
Historic evidence may not be sufficient to predict the future, but neither are computer models. This is why we need to be engaging people with multiple perspectives and planning accordingly.
But doesn’t some group need to be in charge of regulating the atmosphere just as an economy needs to be stabilized by a government?
The failure of all historic attempts to centrally plan economies through socialism, communism, fascism and central banking is now clear to anyone who really looks. Predicting global climate through computer modeling is equally fraught with problems and error. It’s been said, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” There is mounting evidence the global elite have been trying to apply this to control the atmosphere and climate through what’s called “geo-engineering.” Many claim it’s just conspiracy theory, though there are over ninety patents for weather control. Others say that it is real, and the authorities want to do it, but they haven’t yet.
The visual and laboratory evidence is compelling that geo-engineering has been going on for more than fifteen years — covertly — in the form of SRM — Solar Radiation Management (“chemtrails”), the newer “chembombs,” and through high energy antenna arrays like HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program). Oliver’s Travels, in Europe, uses cloud seeding from planes to guarantee rain-free weddings for 100,000 pounds. China bragged of using weather control for their Olympics.
Some experts, like Harvard’s David Keith, say the chemtrails can put aluminum and sulfuric acid in the atmosphere to reflect the sun and cool the planet to mitigate global warming. Others, like Dane Wigington say that the aluminum is trapping more heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere and therefore contributing to more warming. Whether you believe the net effect is heating or cooling the atmosphere, the health and planetary ramifications of geo-engineering demand our attention. Poisoning the atmosphere for any reason is a fundamental violation of our human right to breathe clean air and the responsible individuals and corporations should be held liable.
So what can individuals actually DO to make a difference in this critical area?
Get informed — Be discerning and open-minded to seek truth. Start by reading through many of the external links referenced within this blog, along with the Additional Recommended Resources that we provide at the foot.
Share information with your peers. Social media is not only free, but it’s an extremely effective tool for informing folks and catalyzing change. Whether it’s this article, or one of the many resources it provides, if you feel compelled to get this timely conversation started, please share. Similarly, if you see one of the many folks in positions of power who are claiming that this debate is “settled” on social media, challenge them.
Demand publicly televised debates among people with a track record of honesty, who have done serious homework and truly believe what they are saying.
Help others not to be duped by one faction or another into mindless zealotry.
Support (money, legal and business advice, security etc.) the development and release of New Energy science and devices.
Demand Facts and ask questions. (See list in Resources below.)
Whether we are facing planetary environmental collapse or are being duped by false scare tactics into surrendering our freedom and our prosperity to a one-world, banker-run, totalitarian state, billions of lives hang in the balance. Most people were duped into the Federal Reserve scam under the pretense of “stabilizing the economy,” into corporatist wars of aggression in the Middle East and the Patriot Act by fake WMDs and “spreading Democracy.” Let’s don’t let our heartfelt care for our ecological home be used to finalize the agenda for global domination.
Let’s do our homework, engage in respectful truth-seeking with one another, and collaborate effectively to secure a healthy, thriving planet for the future of all species.
Now what do you think is really going on with Earth’s climate? And what can we do about it?
Additional Recommended Resources
Sample questions for productive Climate conversations
- Why is there no live, mainstream televised public debate about global warming/climate change/climate collapse?
- Isn’t it important to solve atmospheric pollution regardless of whether it’s a major factor in warming or cooling our planet?
- If the planet were warming and continued to, even after humans had reduced atmospheric carbon below 350ppm, what would we do then? Is there planning going on for the future of coastal communities? And where is that discussion being had?
- If other planets in our solar system are known to have been heating up, could the sun itself be a major cause of global warming on Earth?
- What incentive would someone have for explicitly forbidding IPCC researchers from mentioning the role of the sun in warming the Earth?
- Some say we are in a “Pause” on global warming. Some say it’s heating more than ever. How do we determine which is true?
- If CO2 is supposed to be the cause of global warming, what is to be made of the evidence that temperature changes lead, rather than follow, changes in CO2?
- Have temperature fluctuations happened before? Did they happen before humans were using fossil fuels? Specifically, what is the history of the Medieval Warm Period and why is it such a taboo subject?
- What is the role of geo-engineering in climate change?
- What is the role of weather manipulation in commodities futures trading?
- How do those promoting a new international tax, with a digital carbon credit currency, on behalf of a one-world government benefit from the anthropogenic climate change scenario?
Pro AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)
- Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? by David Ray Griffin
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate by Naomi Klein
- The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjørn Lomborg
- Climate Change: The Facts edited by Alan Moran
- The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein (Center for Industrial Progress)
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Global Warming: The Signs and the Science
- The Politics of Global Warming: Climate Change in Washington
- Global Warming: The Rising Storm
- Watch The 10 Best Documentaries About Climate Change — Films for Action
- Climate Change: What’s Really Happening?
- The Next Climate Phase
- The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Doomsday Called Off
- Global Warming or Global Governance?
- Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt
- The IPCC Exposed
- Science of Climate Change — Stefan Molyneux with Dr. Patrick Moore
- The top ten global warming ‘skeptic’ arguments answered
- How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
- The Global Warming Hoax — 19 Irrefutable FACTS
- Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?
- Climate Change Revisited II
- JoNova on BOM
- WUWT on Cooling Records
- NOAA Data on Temp/Precip Records
- Last 20 years of Temp
- The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics
- IPCC Head Pachauri Acknowledges Global Warming Standstill
- Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below
- UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years
- The Sun Defines the Climate (predicts prolonged temperature drop)
- A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems (by CIA)
- IMF and Atmospheric Pressure
- Errors and frauds of global warming science
- Research Shows Unexpected Link Between Solar Activity And Regional Climate Change
- Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
- Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'
- Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
|Have you ever seen a friendly, knowledgeable public debate of the different views on Climate Change? We haven’t, so we created one. Look for it in the Archive section of the ThriveTogether portal.|