Why Climate Change Is Wrong, Dangerous, and Anti-Human
Why Climate Change Is Wrong, Dangerous, and Anti-Human
We need to know the facts about climate change before we ask for another amnesty
Introduction
The last article written discussed how we need to "question the science." We discussed how we need to learn from the pandemic's lessons as we encounter "future pandemics." The most recent study that needs to be seriously studied is what could occur if there were side effects based on rushed products to the market.
In this article, we'll discuss the next pandemic that is on the rise, the pandemic of climate change. We're going to discuss the jaw-dropping flaws of climate change and why we need to seriously question climate change before going any further down this path.
Within this article, the reader will learn the following insights:
The foundations of climate change
The important role of Carbon
How climate change has been monopolized
Why climate change is anti-human
The foundations of climate change
PragerU has a YouTube video that characterizes climate change in a nutshell. It lays out the players and the important terminology we need to know. Starting with number one, we are going to start with the IPCC.
The IPCC is similar to the CDC when it comes to climate change. The goal of the IPCC is "to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities." That alone introduces bias because you are looking only at how human activities and not considering the many other possibilities. This background is the origin of the IPCC.
The IPCC has stated that it was 95% accurate that humans are the leading cause of climate change. Just as the CDC noted a "95% effectiveness." Extremely likely, but with a slight possibility of being wrong. However, within the IPCC, there is discontent about the true nature that human role and activity have played all the climate, specifically that humanity is negatively affecting the environment.
There are two groups of scientists within the IPCC and around Climate Change. Group one is known as the alarmists. This is the perception of the IPCC, even though not all IPCC scientists agree with its rulings and conclusions. Group two is another group of scientists known as the skeptics. Again, both groups of scientists are within the IPCC.
The alarmists state that CO2 is the sole reason for climate change. In contrast, the skeptics say that while climate changes, many factors affect the change, and CO2 is one factor.
"Climate models have failed due to air temperature measurement error, high sensitivity in measuring the sun's energy output, wide variation in cloud-pattern modeling, among other issues." Hoover Institution
Both sides agree on certain topics. Even the IPCC stated in their 2007 report, "The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." So why all the doom and gloom about climate change? That's Group three.
The last group of individuals that play a part in climate change is group three, which contains politicians, green religious activists, media capitalists, and venture firms who profit from the message of climate change. We will discuss this group later.
Ultimately, carbon is at the center of climate change. To understand climate change, we need to understand carbon, so we will have a brief review of carbon.
The Importance of Carbon
Carbon is known as the building block of life. All life contains carbon. We need to understand that carbon is an essential foundation of life. Once we know this, we can continue discussing carbon and how it affects climate change.
To really understand this life-giving process of gases, let's look at one example: how we breathe. Humans take in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Plants in the ocean and ocean life absorb carbon dioxide and dispel oxygen. This is the carbon-oxygen cycle.
Carbon dioxide is used so many examples, and this is one example of how it sustains life. Carbon dioxide should not be seen as a damaging gas because, in greenhouses, it's used for plants to grow.
In its incredible beauty, nature has so many ways to compensate for carbon dioxide and other environmental "catastrophes" (i.e., see the polar bears). We see this compensatory mechanism in oceans, and we see these in plant lives. Actually, due to the increase in CO2, we are seeing more plant life grow. This is good because this makes more oxygen for us.
There is no proof that carbon dioxide is dangerous to humanity. There are only theories.
CO2 is essential to life, end of story.
Just as there is no proof that carbon dioxide is dangerous to humanity, there is no proof that rising temperatures are dangerous. From various studies and trends "being adjusted" to show rising temperatures as a threat to climate data being hidden, there are plenty of climate tricks to present climate change as a threat.
One of them is unfalsifiable claims, where you can blame anything on climate change.
For example, climate change is the reason for the increase in floods, but ignore that we've had a year with no violent tornadoes. If we have more rain, it's due to climate change. If we have less rain, it's due to climate change. Anything can be due to climate change.
Another failure of climate change is that we rely on memory and say, "it never rained this much," or "it's never been this hot before," when we don't even remember what we wore to work two months from today. Our memory is not objective in that sense.
Nothing shows that rising temperatures are dangerous. This itself is also a theory.
Both climate change and rising temperatures are theories of scientism - a religious devotion to the status quo of science - and such theories of scientism, such as dinosaurs, are accepted as fact without being thoroughly scrutinized.
We are now seeing how an essential element of life is being painted negatively. As we move forward, we'll see where this is taking us.
Climate change in the bigger picture
Climate change is actually the new name for an older campaign. Climate change used to be called global warming, but marketers deemed that global warming was not effective. Climate change, and global warming, when we talk about these two, we also have to include the third campaign running parallel with these two, population control.
Population control, global warming, climate change. These scientism theories have been proven wrong time and time again – with population control being the worst for the longest. However, these scientism theories have a lot of money and power, making these topics quite resourceful. Now we discuss group three.
According to the PragerU video:
"Here's where Group Three comes in—the politicians, environmentalists, and media. Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want:
For politicians, it's money and power. For environmentalists, it's money for their organizations and confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature.
And for the media, it's ideology, money, and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.
…And crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided."
This group of politicians, venture capitalists, and religious cult-like devotion believes humanity is a parasite that must be destroyed. This eugenics movement has behind it the resources of shadow banks and such. In the article on Kyrie, we discussed how the Rothschilds, during the first world war, were able to get the land of Israel from Palestine. It's no surprise that we're also seeing the Rothschilds involved in climate change.
These groups benefit from any kind of alarm, climate change, population control, etc. These groups get laws and resources passed for whatever pandemics we face. We see multiple governments, countries, and even the United Nations simply agree to any climate demands they get.
Climate change is ultimately the change of ownership of the Earth's resources. From natural, free ownership for everyone to ownership by global organizations, stock exchanges, and financial institutions.
"A project of the multilateral development banking system, the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange recently created a new asset class that will put, not just the natural world, but the processes underpinning all life, up for sale under the guise of promoting "sustainability." – Whitney Webb.
Why climate change is a resource grab
Even though there is no proof that carbon emissions jeopardize our future, these venture groups, greenhouse groups, media, and politicians are crying for a change. Policies get passed, funds get moved, and the worst is yet to come.
As stated, Earth's natural resources are given up for climate change. Thanks to the work of interviews by journalists James Corbett and Whitney Webb, we hear stories such as how an "industry-led and UN-convened" alliance plans to "transform" the global financial system to promote the transition to a "net zero" economy."
Sounds terrific until you find out what it really means. Our money is going towards climate change, ultimately providing banks and corporations the right over natural resources.
The one interesting angle is the media angle. We can see how the theory of “predictive programming” has prepped us for this, and we can look to examples like The Lorax.
“Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders.
If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as natural progressions, thus lessening possible public resistance and commotion.” – Alan Watt
Dystopian movies aren't necessarily to paint pictures of overcoming tyranny but to subconsciously introduce a dystopian future's reality.
Another example of propaganda is the rise of child superstars like Greta Thunberg. What's interesting to note is that Greta is not the first child being used for climate change. Back in the 90s, Severn Cullis-Suzuki, then just twelve years old, gave a speech at the UN with the same sense of urgency. Children, out of nowhere, just get a stage at the UN Children speaking about climate change. This is the power of propaganda at work.
"That picture of a single starving bear arguably did more to advance the issue of climate change than any white paper or IPCC report could have. Unfortunately, the footage tells us relatively little about the actual state of the polar bear population." - Jon Miltimore
All this is allowing these venture capitalists to take hold of nature's resources and attempt to play God. We've seen countries try to control the weather for their leisure, for their benefit, and we've also seen individuals try to block out the sun. Ultimately, by playing God, an even darker side to climate change begins to emerge.
Why climate change is anti-human
Staying with the media perspective, we can see other dystopian movies which plant seeds for our potential future. In the film "What happened to Monday," we see another example of predictive programming.
In this dystopian future, due to the concern of resources of the Earth, children were ultimately killed for the sake of saving the planet. Ironically, the government leader asks for "amnesty" at the movie's end - similar to what we saw The Atlantic do. Climate change and population growth are the themes of this movie through the lens of predictive planning.
This is why these two campaigns, climate change, and population growth, are anti-human. This scientism population myth has been disproven repeatedly. Unfortunately, we see real-world consequences as this message is erroneously broadcasted. For one, we see our declining population birth rate. This is the same tactic we saw with lockdowns which only led to suicides.
Climate change is anti-human because climate change looks to decrease the building block of life, carbon. Reducing the carbon decreases oxygen which is what we'll need to survive. In actuality, we need more carbon if we plan on holding 8 to 10,000,000,000 people on the planet.
Unless the goal is to decrease the population. If the goal is to reduce the population, then we need to decrease the amount of gas promoting life on Earth. Multiple world leaders have made such statements about reducing the population from Bill Gates to Sadhguru, who both appear to be members of the World Economic Forum.
Suppose the goal is ultimately to decrease the population for the world to survive. In that case, it makes sense why we need to rush experimental devices on people to save them. Suppose the goal is to reduce the population. In that case, it makes sense why we need to decrease carbon dioxide, ultimately carbon, which eventually decreases oxygen for humans to breathe.
Climate change, if accomplished, ultimately results in decreasing the human population. That is its ultimate goal.
And that is why it must be met with the truth. Not the illusionary, corporate-funded truth – but the absolute, natural world truth.