As far as we know (or that has not been classified anyway) Earth is a unique planet, in that, it supports an abundance of LIFE. It contains an adequate combination of water, oxygen, sunlight, carbon dioxide (among other key constituents) and allows for a symbiotic exchange of living beings to exist. The journey to the present era of humans has been strewn with challenges, however, and it is through these challenging circumstances that our species has evolved to its current state.
In fact, Steven Stanley posits in his book, "Children of the Ice Age: How a Global Catastrophe Allowed Humans to Evolve" that humans evolved to develop larger brains etc. due in large part to the necessity of overcoming natural climate change which has been a part of the planet's history since its inception and long before humans existed. We are currently in between glacial periods for this very same 'ice age' (i.e. existence of permanent ice at the poles) which initiated more than 2 million years ago and it is during this most recent inter-glacial period (over the last 10 thousand years) that we have reached our current level of development.
So, while the glacial periods during the current ice age over the past 2+ million years may have assisted us to evolve, it has been the current inter-glacial period covering the last 10,000 years that has allowed us to utilize that evolution and THRIVE as a species. The global climate certainly hasn't been stable througout the current 10,000 year inter-glacial period (see Image A below), and it has been during the warmer periods within this time frame when civilizations have flourished due in part to relatively stable weather and more predictable growing seasons (i.e. more baroclinic stability).
The gradual trend for Earth's climate over the past 10,000 years is a COOLING one as shown in the above graph, but the Earth has been generally warming over the past two centuries as we are still emerging from one of the coolest periods of the last 10,000 years (The Little Ice Age). While the warmer periods tend to bring relatively stable weather and more predictable growing seasons, the cooler periods tend to bring shorter and more unpredictable growing seasons since unseasonable frosts destroy crops and due to stronger and more frequent storms as a result of less baroclinic stability in the atmosphere (i.e. larger temperature contrasts lead to stronger storms).
Of course, despite this history of naturally changing global climate and the general trend toward the next glacial period, the mainstream message that we hear through the media is that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate and that the only culprit that can be blamed is the increase in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions due to human activity (primarily the burning fossil fuels). If the large-scale burning of fossil fuels continues, we are told that this will lead to more global warming as well as a disruption in the stability of the climate.
However, there are many irrational assumptions built into this warning for humanity. As mentioned above, warmer periods have historically been times of relatively stable climates which have led to flourishing societies. It is the colder periods that have resulted in less climatic stability and to the societal problems (i.e. starvation) that come with it. In terms of global average temperature, what we are being told with regards to the affects of apparent warming is logically inconsistent with what has been documented in the past.
In addition, policies to limit and reduce CO2 emissions from human activities have been on the front burner in recent years as global initiatives to create both taxation and trading schemes to reduce overall CO2 in the atmosphere have been developed. And yet, if we actually looked at the evidence is it even reasonably possible to 'convict' CO2 for crimes against the Earth and humanity? After all, CO2 is a VERY important life-cycle element with regards to photosynthesis (see Image B below) which drives the growth of all plant life including the foods that humans and animals consume for survival.
For the record, this article is not written in defense of the fossil fuel industry. There are plenty of pollution issues as well as geopolitical issues that arise from the use of fossil fuels which can and should be addressed. However, CO2 is not a pollutant and has never been classified as a pollutant mostly because it serves a very beneficial purpose within the cycle of life and because it exists at too small of a quantity in the atmosphere to be toxic to animals or humans (0.04% of the atmosphere at current levels). If we spend any appreciable time indoors with other humans and with closed windows, we no doubt have often experienced indoor CO2 levels that range between 2-4 times the amount that currently exists in the ambient outdoor atmosphere even at current CO2 levels.
The point is that there is NO toxic danger posed to animals or humans in regards to CO2 even for worst case scenario projections of human-induced CO2 over the coming decades. The only question with regards to it's potential 'danger' is whether supposed warming as a result of CO2 may pose a danger to life on Earth due to assumed disruptions in the climate (which is in illogical hypothesis based on recorded evidence where warmer periods have been more climatically stable).
Despite CO2 not being a pollutant, in 2007, Massachusetts vs EPA concluded by ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases AS pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act. However, prior to the ruling, the EPA argued that it would not make a connection between CO2 and human-caused climate change before the agency had researched "the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it." But due to the definition of 'pollutants' within the Clean Air Act, it was ruled that the perception of a 'threat' posed by CO2 fell under the definition of a pollutant even if CO2 is not actually toxic like the pollutants listed under the Act.
However, it was not only the EPA that argued against regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts who resided on the council for the trial wrote that "the constitutional role of the courts ... is to decide concrete cases—not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates...". He also felt that the connection between increasing CO2 concentrations and potential dangers was too speculative to warrant that kind of ruling. So, just because the speculative potential dangers of a non-toxic life-cycle element like CO2 have been ruled in this case to fit the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, it doesn't mean that increasing CO2 levels poses a dangerous situation. After all, the assumptions for the 'dangers' that CO2 could potentially cause were based completely on the results of some very flawed and consistently inaccurate computer models. Either way, this case is what had opened the doors to the taxation, trading and regulation of CO2 in the United States.
So, if high CO2 concentrations (or even the supposed warming that results from it) are indeed dangerous to the Earth, what evidence from the past do we have for this? As mentioned previously, warmer periods have historically been more beneficial to life on Earth so under the current popular assumptions for CO2, its emissions may even be welcomed. However, in terms of CO2 concentrations behaving as a virtual 'thermostat' for the Earth, is there any evidence for this? Can we really turn the temperature of the Earth downward simply by reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
Below is a graph (Image C) of CO2 concentrations over the past ~600 million years...
The green line near the very bottom of the graph is the current level of concentrations and the red line just above it is the WORST case scenario for concentrations in 2100. It is easy to see that CO2 concentrations have been at their LOWEST over the past 20 million years compared to the whole period and it has been nearly 300 million years since CO2 concentrations have been as low as the current period. Otherwise, concentrations have been significantly higher than today for almost the whole of the last 600 million years. It is also interesting to note that these periods of very high levels of CO2 coincided with flourishing global flora (i.e. plant life...more on this later).
When we compare this change in CO2 over time with the change in global average temperature over the same period, we can see that there is no correlation between CO2 and global average temperature (see Image D below).
It is clear that concentrations of CO2 and global average temperature change independently of each other. However, these authentic climate science graphs are excluded from any mainstream 'marketing' campaigns to pin CO2 as a dangerous pollutant that needs to be regulated in order to save the planet. Most people are probably more familiar with graphs such as the following two graphs below which show the correlation between CO2 and global average temperature over the past 450,000 years (Image E) as well as the concentrations of CO2 over the past 800,000 years rather than over the past 600 million years (Image F).
The second graph (Image F) is also used to manipulate popular opinion. By only showing CO2 concentrations starting ~800,000 years ago during the current lowest atmospheric CO2 concentrations that have occurred over the past 20 million years, it makes the current rise in CO2 concentrations appear to be more significant than it is in reality. Refer to Image C where it is clearly shown that CO2 concentrations have never been lower than in recent times and how concentrations have been significantly higher for most of the last 600 million years with the exception of ~300 million years ago (just prior to the rise of the Dinosaurs) when they were only slightly above today's levels.
When viewed in proper context, it is clear that not only does CO2 NOT modulate global average temperature but that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are extremely LOW with respect to the history of the Earth. It is safe to say that there is no warranted reason for alarm due to the current increase in CO2 concentrations (find more information on the lack of relationship between CO2 and temperature at this link). "Top 10 Facts that Prove CO2 Does NOT Drive Global Temperature "
In addition, this lack of a relationship between CO2 and global average temperature should not be a surprise since while CO2 IS a greenhouse gas and while its presence does result in net warming of the Earth's atmosphere, its ability to contribute to FURTHER warming is limited (see Image G).
So, CO2 is not a toxic pollutant (despite the 2007 ruling against the EPA) and it also doesn't appear to have any appreciable ability to drive or modulate global climate change with current concentrations. If we were conducting a cost/benefit analysis of the impacts of CO2, the 'cost' side of the equation doesn't appear to be very compelling despite the fear-mongering delivered through the mainstream media (we'll address ocean acidification later). That being said, what can we postulate regarding the potential BENEFITS of added CO2 concentrations if there are any at all?
It turns out that not only do plants require adequate levels of CO2 in order to combine it with sunlight and water to produce oxygen (i.e. photosynthesis), but that increased concentrations of CO2 actually contribute to faster growth as well as to a higher level of drought resistance (i.e. they require less water)! This has the potential to be very positive in terms of food production as higher concentrations of CO2 can allow for crops to grow, not only faster, but also with less water making the entire process more efficient and less expensive.
In addition, a combination of human intervention combined with elevated CO2 in the atmosphere has led to a recent 'greening' of the planet overall (see Image H below). This is not surprising, however, as a large portion of the measured human emissions are left unaccounted for on an annual basis in terms of the total CO2 concentrations measured in the atmosphere. This is believed to be due to the global biomass (trees, algae, oceans etc.) sequestering the unaccounted for CO2 emissions from human sources which has led to more 'greening' and higher drought resistance.
|Image H - % change in 'greening' from 1982-2010|
The above image is pretty compelling in terms of the magnitude of biomass growth over just a 30-yr period when temperatures have also been generally warming. Its no wonder that plants grown in greenhouses have CO2 pumped into them in order to accelerate growth (usually greenhouses are elevated to 3-5 times current atmospheric concentrations). Yet we are supposed to 'believe' that both increasing CO2 and its assumed warming temperatures are dangerous to life on Earth.
To the contrary, it is widely known that plant life on Earth requires a minimum concentration of CO2 for photosynthesis to occur. Actually, when CO2 concentrations dropped to their lowest levels over the last 600 million years just 20,000 years ago at the end of the last major glaciation (~180ppm), the Earth was fairly close to the minimum threshold for adequate photosynthesis which is generally considered to be ~150ppm. During that time, plant growth was significantly decreased relative to the growth that we are seeing today.
In fact, without modern human-induced CO2 emissions or some other natural response that would greatly increase CO2 in the atmosphere, we would likely be living through the final 4-5 million years of life on Earth according to the trend of CO2 decrease over the past 160 million years (see Image I)!
Okay, so the idea of 'only' having 4-5 million years left for life on Earth doesn't seem particularly urgent. In reality, it is not urgent but the point is that CO2 is essential for life on Earth and that we are currently living during a time when atmospheric CO2 is relatively sparse and yet we are being made to 'believe' that increasing CO2 poses enough of a dangerous threat to life on Earth that it can be regulated as a pollutant (i.e. toxic) under the Clean Air Act in the United States!
Speaking of public policies that address CO2 emissions from humans, how did such an important element for life on Earth get 'pegged' as pubic enemy number one on such a global scale? Without going off on a tangent to describe the chronology of how globalist special interests have infiltrated both business and government over the past centuries, we only need to start with a United Nations offspring known as The Club of Rome.
Starting in the early 1970's, The Club of Rome (made up of sponsored scientists and academics) published "The Limits To Growth" which essentially laid out scare tactics regarding overpopulation and it used plenty of creative graphics to demonstrate the rapidly approaching ultimate doom of humanity unless there is some form of high level government intervention. Depopulation and reasons to encourage it have been its primary premise along with any other perceived 'threat' to humanity (including climate change in recent years). It has also been stated from the group that "Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man." This group has been insisting that human growth and activity must cease for the 'benefit' of the planet no matter where they direct the blame for taking such action. Feel free to dig deeper down that rabbit hole for yourself.
Then, in 1975, anthropologist Margaret Mead led a conference in North Carolina along with some willing scientists from which the conclusion was drawn that "human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life." This, of course was stated at a time when leading climatologists generally believed that not only were global average temperature steadily decreasing since WWII and glaciers advancing, but that the Earth was heading into its next major glaciation. While it was known that CO2 emissions were increasing due to human activities at that time, there wasn't any way to link this greenhouse gas to warming global temperatures since temperatures were obviously COOLING at the time.
But, of course global average temperatures conveniently started to warm throughout the 1980's and 1990's which provided an opportunity to further advance the theory that CO2 emissions are causing global warming. So, in June 1988, James Hansen spoke before Congress about human-induced global warming on one of the hottest days on record in Washington D.C. and during one of the hottest and driest summers in the US since the 1930's (nice move). This was followed by a speech by Margaret Thatcher addressing the dangers of global warming in November 1989 just hours before the initiation of the destruction of the Berlin Wall.
What these two public proclamations have in common is that none of their future timelines for potential threats to humanity came to fruition (you can read/listen to their projections yourself now 30 years later) and both were purposely timed. True to The Club Of Rome modus operandi of requiring the existence of some imminent threat to humanity due to the actions of humans themselves, as soon as it became eminent that the threat of the Cold War was 'melting away', this threat was replaced with the threat of human CO2 emissions causing 'global warming' along with its eminent ecological destruction of the planet...hence Thatcher's speech just hours before the fall of the Berlin wall.
The core theme associated with The Club Of Rome's concept of humans being a 'cancer' and their own worst enemy is that of 'manipulation'. This includes both the manipulation of science to produce apparent results as well as the manipulation of public opinion and perception of reality by inciting emotional reactions and responses among the general public. As James Delingpole of The Telegraph stated in regards to The Club of Rome and its stand on human induced climate change,
"This belief [i.e. humans are a cancer to the Earth] explains, inter alia, why the 'science' behind AGW* is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The 'science' was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion." - *AGW = Anthroprogenic Global Warming (i.e. man-made)
If it wasn't human-induced climate change, The Club of Rome would put their focus on some other concocted reason as to why humans and their activities are posing the biggest threat to life itself. This kind of manipulation has its roots in Freudian perceptions of limited human potential that were adopted by high level globalists in the late 19th century. In fact, Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, is considered to be the 'father' of modern propaganda as the origins of modern marketing are strongly linked to his work; a work that was based primarily on his Uncle's perceptions of limited human potential.
As you can guess, Freud's impression of humans is not very flattering. Generally speaking, those with interest in a global government view humans through his lens which is why groups like The Club of Rome portray humans as a cancer on the Earth and why depopulating the planet for better control of resources and human labor is the primary goal. They essentially view the masses as unintelligent livestock that can and should be controlled and directed at their discretion.
This same line of thinking formed the foundation of the social engineering programs of The Tavistock Institute which has sought to create and mobilize human movements like the 'British Invasion' and rock n' roll itself as well the environmentalist movement which includes the 'counter culture' (i.e. the hippies) and the infusing of drugs into society as an experimentation in the human behavior of the masses.
And while the larger push of the environmental movement may derive from this kind of social engineering, those individuals who join these movements have good intentions and kind hearts, in my opinion. Unfortunately, these characteristics are the criteria that make it easier for someone to take advantage. It turns out that inciting large groups of people (especially young people) into sharing a subtle hatred for humanity that stems from an internal hatred toward themselves (i.e. guilt/shame), is fairly easy. This kind of self-hate inducing programming is entirely Freudian in nature and has formed the foundation for state-funded public education for many decades.
For example, during the social media '10 year challenge' campaign in late 2018, there were several memes being circulated that depicted before and after images that appear to show damage being done to the environment in some way over that period (see Images J & K below).
At first glance, it appears that these images provide a clear picture of ecological changes that have occurred over the past 10 years. But if we stop for a minute before reacting emotionally to images, it becomes easier to see that it is at least possible that these images may be misleading us by inciting our emotions without any proof that what is being portrayed is an authentic representation. For environmentalists that dedicate their existence to improving conditions on Earth these kind of images can be particularly jarring and these types of individuals are much more prone to simply re-posting this kind of imagery without any critical and independent thinking prior to doing so.
Image J is tempting to accept as a depiction of reality because it depicts a very robust and healthy polar bear with nothing but ice in the background on top with the number '2009' printed over it. It's interesting because according to "An Inconvenient Truth" which came out in 2006, polar bear populations were supposedly already suffering like the apparently sick and emaciated polar bear with limited ice as depicted in the bottom photo with the numbers '2019' printed over it. Are we to assume that polar bear health improved for a few years after Gore's documentary before finally declining in recent years?
From a critical thinking perspective, for all we know, both photos could have been taken on the same day but simply taken of two different polar bears on different parts of the ice. Where is the verification that this is an authentic photo taken in a similar region at the same time of year during the two particular years in question? It doesn't exist for a reason. The purpose of this meme is to incite an emotional response and to promote guilt/shame which is what leads to demands for top-down mandates (i.e. government) to 'solve' the apparent problem (Hegelian Dialectic). Image K proposes a similar situation, in that, there is no verification that these are before and after photos of the same reef or that these photos were taken during the years as depicted on the given meme.
During the '10 year challenge', in response to seeing some of these manipulative memes, I put together a quick meme myself showing the Arctic sea ice extent in March 2008 vs the Arctic sea ice extent in March 2018. The images come straight from the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO and the dates are included on the images directly from their site. The best part is that anyone could go to their website and reproduce what I quickly put together here (see Image L).
These are authentic images that can be verified and despite some slight inter-annual variability, these images are virtually identical in terms of their depiction of sea ice coverage. It would be pretty difficult to determine any kind of a trend in maximum sea ice extent between 2008 and 2018 based on these images alone. This also suggests that what we are 'hearing' in terms of polar bears running out of ice and drowning in recent years are perhaps less than authentic. However, this kind of matter-of-fact imagery doesn't evoke the intended emotional outrage as does portraying dying polar bears and/or bleaching reefs that obliviously result from the evilness that is humankind (thank you, Freud).
The problem with this kind of large-scale manipulation is that younger generations are raised within it and do not have a sense of where reality ends and where the manipulation begins. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and her 'Green New Deal' are the perfect example of what globalist special interests are intending to create with regards to guilt-based, anti-human agendas premised on false perceptions of humans and the environments in which they live. Within this proposal are presumptions regarding CO2 emissions that I have previously addressed as misleading. And the solutions proposed through it are essentially a carbon copy of the United Nation's Agenda 2030 which aligns with similar anti-human sentiments that have been expressed through The Club of Rome and other globalist groups hell-bent on reducing human population and controlling all of Earth's resources.
I don't personally blame Cortez for misunderstanding the science of climate change and how CO2 emissions figure into the equation since the preferences and proposals that channel through her are simply a result of the special interests that created her and the ideology that she promotes.
"People do not have ideas; ideas have people" - Carl Jung
Like other environmentally oriented individuals, she is passionate and she means well, in my opinion. But as with this scenario and others, it is when we start proposing anti-human and depopulation agendas onto ourselves that the goals of those with globalist intentions are more effortlessly fulfilled.
What primarily misleads most people in regards to science of climate change, in my opinion, is the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is supposed to serve as the global authority on climate change but instead of studying all natural AND man-made influences they focus entirely on human influences on climate. This is very unscientific as it presumes that global climate is somehow nearly stable without human influence which we know is not true and that human influences are the only important variables to consider when it comes to climate change.
Unlike the IPCC, the International Conference on Climate Change which has been meeting since 2008, invites research and speakers that assess natural variables for global climate change including orbital variations of the Sun, varying sunspot activity and solar electromagnetism as well as ocean currents and geological emissions. They also include the impacts of human emissions making the approach a much more holistic and encompassing one.
But unfortunately, most people haven't heard about this annual gathering and the globalist special interests created the United Nations and its IPCC group in order to first create the FEAR (and guilt) associated with human-induced climate change and then to pin the blame on humans so that a solution can be derived that limits human activity, decreases human population and puts global resources under strict control...all of which are the primary intentions of these special interests regardless of whether it is due to climate change or any other means toward these ends.
The IPCC and other political pundits want to avoid debate on the topic which is why we are also told that there is a 97% consensus among scientists with regards to recent climate change being primarily due to human influences. In other words, this proclamation is DESIGNED to prevent debates. I plan on writing up an entire article about the manipulations associated with this topic so I will not get into the details here. But, the gist of it is that the 97% is a very misleading figure and a significant portion of the scientists whose papers are considered part of the 97% consensus have actually spoken out against the author of the 'study' that came to that conclusion for misrepresenting the findings in their papers.
It is also important to note that 'consensus' means very little in the realm of science as the scientific process is not a democratic one. Theoretically, it only takes one experiment to be accurate with everyone else being inaccurate for that one person whose work is accurate to represent the BEST science. Even then, it is an important part of the scientific process to challenge current paradigms by constantly running experiments and re-testing results. This is how authentic science evolves and it is apparent that the UN and the IPCC have no intentions of evolving climate science or opening up to new perspectives as the science that they have 'settled' is not open to debate or to proper scientific rigor.
Though we cannot 'vote' for consensus on scientific conclusions, it is important to note that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition speaking out against the 'junk science' that I have chronicled in this article with regards to CO2 emissions and climate change. In fact, a significant number of those 30,000+ scientists are even some of the very SAME scientists that were misrepresented as part of the supposed 97% consensus (see Image M and link to article below)!
However, despite this overwhelming disagreement within the scientific community, the focus on CO2 emissions and climate change continues to take precedent in the collective psyche at the expense of other more important environmental issues. Based on what has been discussed above regarding globalist intentions, it isn't difficult to surmise that this emotionally manipulated 'distraction' is probably intentional. In my opinion, there is an attempt to manipulate the masses to engender a sense of hopelessness and insignificance (Freudian) so as to insist upon the involvement of large governmental agencies to 'save' us from the unsolvable problem of climate change (Hegelian Dialectic).
Considering what is currently occurring (March 2019) around the globe with heavily indoctrinated and manipulated children (though well-intentioned) skipping their daily indoctrination schooling (how ironic) in order to protest and strike against government 'inaction' on climate change, it isn't difficult to recognize the success of this high level manipulation upon the global youths!
It doesn't help that these victims of emotional manipulation have been fed with the idea since birth that we have reached a 'point of no return' in terms of CO2 emissions and are currently facing a climate catastrophe because of it. From their point of view, this must be terrifying! And of course this manufactured terror is the foundational intention for creating this perception in the first place.
I am grateful that I was educated in the earth/climate sciences prior to this strong wave of indoctrination and that I have a better ability to decipher between the science and the rhetoric than most of today's youths. That's why when one of these poor souls watches a rhetoric-driven and factually inaccurate video like, "The Biggest Lie About Climate Change", they can come away with it feeling like they were lied to by oil companies when they are actually being lied to by the developer of the video.
In it, the featured vlogger suggests that Exxon's scientists are responsible for 'discovering' a link between CO2 emissions and climate in the 1970's when this scientific hypothesis was actually first proposed in the late 19th century and was what Al Gore's Harvard professor (Roger Reville) supported when Gore was a student of his in the late 1960's. This misrepresentation helps frame the 'climate deceivers' as the oil companies (especially Exxon) rather than the global elitists who put forth the narrative. The vlogger also suggests that George W. Bush had CO2 removed as a pollutant during his presidency when the Massachusetts vs EPA case that I go over above in this article clearly shows that this statement is not true. It would take an entire post to go through every inaccurate point made in that video so I will just leave it at that for now. The point is that this video is designed to target the ignorant and to incite emotional reaction while deflecting the perception of dishonesty away from corporate global interests for population and resource control.
Independent journalist, James Corbett compares what is happening now with climate change to how most religions operate. That is, it is predicated upon a foundation of guilt for committing sins (original sin) which requires atonement. In this case, an entire generation is being indoctrinated to BELIEVE that their very existence is harming the Earth due to their contribution to CO2 emissions! And, of course, the only way to atone for those sins and to 'save' the Earth is to pay higher taxes so that the government (higher authority) can 'fix' the problem.
So, with FEAR in the air and GUILT in our hearts, collective support for global governance expands. Using deep psychological manipulation is an atrocious act in itself but when it is used as a means to an end with the intended result being a one-world totalitarian government with control over all people and resources (for the 'good' of the planet, of course), these tactics become inexcusable. This pervading guilt that results from these manufactured perceptions is so insidious that there are actually support groups for those suffering from 'climate grief' as our perceptions of the future of the planet become ever distorted by special interests that control and operate our media outlets.
This distraction campaign also keeps our focus on increasing CO2 concentrations as the perceived primary environmental crisis while other legitimately threatening environmental concerns are ignored. Mike Adams of Natural News lists 10 environmental/health concerns that are currently not being addressed due to an unnecessary focus on CO2 concentrations:
- Fukushima radiation
- China's industrial pollution
- Mass deforestation
- Heavy metals contamination (food/soil)
- Genetically engineered crop contamination
- Pharmaceutical contamination
- Mercury pollution (dental/vaccines)
- Pesticides/herbicides in foods
While not an exhaustive list, it shows that there are far more pressing environmental/health related concerns upon which to focus our attention and in ways where we can actually make a difference rater than feeling guilty and helpless in the face of perceived ecological collapse due to CO2 emissions. And though humans do have some impact on local climates due to artificial heating, land use changes and other examples, there is no scientific basis for blaming CO2 emissions from human activity for changing the global climate as discussed above.
The only potential argument that can be made against CO2 emissions as posing a potential environmental threat is in the case of ocean acidification (I promised that I would get to this). Basically, as CO2 concentrations rise, the oceans absorb more of the gas which results in the production of carbonic acid (CO2 + H20 = CH2O3). This 'sounds' like a pretty negative thing but the scientific reality is that, while there are local issues with ocean acidity near the coasts of highly populated areas due to runoff pollution entering the oceans (a real environmental issue), the average pH of the oceans is considered to be alkaline (~8.1) with no threat of the pH dropping to 'acidic' levels due to the presence of more CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from ~280ppm at the start of the industrial revolution to just over 400ppm currently, there has been almost no change to the average pH of the ocean over that time. Let's face it, it is difficult for changes in a gas that makes up less than 1/25th of one percent of the atmosphere (CO2) to have much of an impact on anything. A little more of almost nothing is still almost nothing, after all. For more on the science of ocean acidification and the low likelihood of negative ecological impacts from minimal increases in carbonic acid, you can read more on it here.
Along with water, oxygen and sunlight, CO2 is one of the foundational elements for the production of life on Earth. And despite what we are told regarding the threats of increased CO2, there doesn't appear to be any legitimate toxic or environmental concerns associated with it as discussed in this article. In fact, due to the currently very LOW concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to the Earth's history, it could be argued that the Earth may BENEFIT from increased CO2 since this would improve drought resistance in our crops and maximize photosynthetic uptake which could increase total crop yields while speeding up the growth process!
Remember that the only reason that the EPA was forced to regulate CO2 as a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act is because the results from inaccurate computer models based on poor assumptions were used as a way to demonstrate that CO2 could fall under the 'definition' of a pollutant in that the supposed global warming from increased CO2 emissions could 'harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage'. Of course, if authentic science and common sense were used along with more appropriate assumptions in the models, this kind of a 'conclusion' would not be drawn.
In fact, if we were to rank water, oxygen, sunlight and CO2 (all involved in photosynthesis) in terms of their potential to harm health, the environment and cause property damage, CO2 would probably rank last on the list! For example, oxygen makes up more than 20% of the atmosphere and it is involved in all oxidative processes (i.e. rust, human cellular degeneration, fires). Should we consider regulating oxygen and reducing its atmospheric concentrations under the Clean Air Act? Water covers more than 70% of the Earth's surface and is responsible for billions of dollars in damages and human fatalities every year (i.e. storm damage, erosion, drownings)! Should we regulate water under the Clean Air Act? Finally, over exposure to sunlight causes damage to structures as well as to skin cells...sounds like a potential threat to me!
Obviously, it would be an outrageous notion to propose regulating these elements under the Clean Air Act and, in my opinion, therefore it is even MORE outrageous to regulate CO2 under the Act since it is the LEAST prevalent and likely the most benign of the photosynthetic elements in question. Actually, when it comes to a can of soda, it is likely that the ONLY non-toxic ingredient in that can is the carbon bubbles (CO2)!
At the end of the day, if we were to conduct a cost benefit analysis in terms of CO2 emissions, we may just find that there are more benefits to higher CO2 concentrations or that there are at least very few if any costs associated with it. This would be a rational mode of action when creating public policy based on scientific findings. But nothing about the creation and promotion of the CO2/climate change narrative appears to be 'normal'.
Its obvious to me that draconian solutions to the 'problem' were already planned (i.e. carbon trading/taxes and stratospheric injections) and that manipulating the information as well as the emotions of the masses was necessary in order to create the means toward those ends. After all, if governmental organizations were truly interested in protecting human health and the health of the planet would spraying the stratosphere with aerosols really be a proposed solution to a 'warming' planet? I have hunch that the potential costs and negative side effects of blocking the sun with aerosols would be far greater than any supposed costs due to rising CO2 concentrations as discussed in this article. There is also likely more potential benefit that could result from increased CO2 for environmental purposes than from the policies proposed to reduce or counter it! So, its no surprise that a proper cost/benefit analysis is not being conducted since it would destroy the narrative.
Climate change IS, has always and will continue to be a problem with which humans must contend in order to survive. However, pretending that the climate would be stable without human intervention and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is the only thing that is causing the climate to change and that somehow reducing CO2 concentrations will 'fix' this problem that we 'caused' is irrational. If we instead realize that collective fear and guilt is being used as the means toward the intention of global control of people and resources, the promotion of this narrative starts to become more rational. Its just difficult for most of us to admit that nefarious intentions may be behind such developments. I personally see no other explanation for what is otherwise an irrational conclusion.
There are plenty of problems with the fossil fuel industry including the mining of coal/oil/natural gas, the pollution that results from refining it and burning it as well as the geopolitical impacts of nations vying for more resources. And while seeking cleaner and more renewable energy sources that can sustain our energy needs would benefit humans and the Earth, the focus on CO2 emissions that result from burning fossil fuels as something to fear is inappropriate. If anything, CO2 emissions may be one of the few positive benefits of burning fossil fuels...another being the countless lives that have been saved due to modern heating technologies. After all, contrary to what we are supposed to believe, the mortality rates for cold-related deaths across the globe are far higher than those for heat-related deaths (Image N).
Ideally, we would recover and distribute Nikola Tesla's tower technologies along with other over-unity 'free' energy devices and we could all live much more self-sufficiently without major environmental impacts as we grow our own food, collect and clean our own water while we use modern communication technologies in a way that de-centralization of power and authority could be achieved without the need for large centralized government or corporate organizations controlling us or our resources. I imagine that this would be a much more peaceful world as well.
But these kinds of de-centralized, environmentally friendly and self-sufficient societies are exactly what those with globalist one-world government intentions are attempting to prevent. Those profiting from the oil industry are the same one's profiting from carbon trading which is why such an irrational narrative regarding CO2 emissions was devised in the first place. The Green New Deal comes off as a plan of action toward an environmentally friendly energy economy when it is actually just the UN's Agenda 2030 repackaged and it emotionally manipulates the environmentally minded by promoting 'sustainability' while actually blueprinting the steps toward globally centralized control of people and resources. The very last thing that these folks want for the people of the world is self-sufficiency since this renders 'the ruling class' unnecessary. This is why 'free' energy technologies are kept hidden and why more and more local jurisdictions remove individual rights to water collection and growing your own food as time moves forward.
CO2 is not toxic, it is not a pollutant and it is not causing any significant or 'dangerous' warming (see image N). The real toxicity and danger in the world is the ongoing manipulation of information and the Freudian manipulation of people's emotions in order to keep the masses ignorant, dependent and under control. Climate change will always be an issue and so long as we are informed and that we have the technology to adapt, we are likely to survive in the ways that we have through thousands of years of climatic changes.
If we really want to focus our energies on eliminating direct human impacts on the climate (this is what these protesting children SHOULD be focusing on), we can start by demanding that all military, public and private weather modification and geoengineering programs be eliminated. While CO2 emissions from human activity are not likely affecting the climate in any significant way, it is very likely that some (if not all) of the observed changes in our local climates is due to over 70 years of atmospheric intervention using everything from cloud seeding to enhance or reduce precipitation to the use of ionospheric heating technologies to shift jet streams and alter storm paths.
Its absurd that decades of 'playing' with the atmosphere is not included in the climate models or even considered in the discussion about human impacts on climate change. This again reveals the nefarious intentions behind the CO2 narrative. If you are doubting the idea that humans have been altering the weather (and therefore the climate) for decades, click on the link here for an impressive timeline that includes the development of technologies as well as the implementation of programs for manipulating the weather and for geoengineering the atmosphere for various purposes.
If the climate does 'spin out of control', it will be because of these activities and NOT because of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Our biggest hurdle is informing the populace about what is REALLY going on and redirecting all of our collective efforts toward more self-sustainable living and de-centralized authority so that big governments, corporations and militarizes can no longer conduct such 'experiments' at our expense and drive guilt-based narratives that leave us begging for our own shackles.
I am optimistic about the future though (no seriously) and with more people becoming informed about the reality of these kinds of large-scale manipulations, I see the intentions of these globalists falling apart at some point. Of course, anything that we can do to accelerate its collapse (i.e. refocusing anger at government inaction on climate change toward demanding the truth and the reestablishment of authentic science) will benefit us all. I will leave you with the very optimistic outlook of former Greenpeace activist, Patrick Moore (i.e. the sensible environmentalist) which contradicts the fear-based message that today's youths are receiving about their future prospects. I agree that it really is our responsibility to help youths understand that they are welcome on Earth and that they need not atone for their original sin of CO2 emissions. Thank you for reading and sharing!
"I have a huge amount of optimism for the future. I just wish people would stop telling our kids the world's coming to an end and that we're evil...you know, that we're the enemies of nature. Kinda like, that's why I departed Greenpeace. It was when the environmental movement turned from being humanitarian...to stop nuclear war, to stop toxics in the environment which were all dangerous to people, to becoming anti-human basically and saying that humans are the enemies of the Earth. And I don't believe that...we're part of the Earth." - Dr. Patrick Moore (former Greenpeace activist)