Let's get some facts stated right from the start that we need to bear in mind when thinking about what happens with our Earth's climate. As the picture below shows, Earth goes through long cycles of natural change that for most millennia have been totally independent of human activity. To consider that we can override these to the point of planetary destruction when we aren't even close to either the highest or lowest points in any of these cycles is pure fearmongering fantasy. We can think about who and why they might want to perpetuate such fraud later.
Species have been evolving and going extinct for millennia too. Whilst nobody welcomes the loss of these beautiful animals it is nonetheless not a new phenomenon by any means. Dinosaurs, mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers and the dodo are just some of the better-known species that have failed to adapt to changes in their environment and/or their predicament. Species that have survived the longest are those that have most successfully adopted new physiology through natural selection and have adapted their behaviour to change, be it from climate cycles or other species around them. Pestilence, famine, predation and death naturally occur - shock horror - nature is harsh and very cruel at times. When food is plentiful, species flourish. When food becomes scarce, disease gets the upper hand. Species that can move onto new food sources - whether different types of vegetation or different other beasts have a greater chance of survival, unless of course there is some planetary cataclysmic event that nothing other sheltered unicellular organisms can survive.
We need to understand what our place in the universe is, and what factors have come together than support life on this planet. Whether different planetary conditions elsewhere has lead the evolution of species with totally different environmental requirements seems perfectly possible and logical to me. This has been assumed in many different science fiction movies in the past too. Maybe these aliens exist in different dimensions too and "visit" us by shifting into our dimension? Whether they exist and/or whatever happens for them to visit us is outside the scope of this discussion on climate and whether human activity is solely responsible for recent changes, and whether they are really significantly different from the cycles that have happened throughout history.
Lennert D. den Boer is a Canadian geoscientist and professional geophysicist, who graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1983. He is a current member of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), and past member of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) and Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG). He has authored or co-authored more than sixty technical articles, published in various geoscience journals, including Geophysics, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Prospecting, First Break, and The Leading Edge.
This presentation goes step by step through the scientific facts that explain how the Sun influences our atmosphere and climate.
Milankovitch Cycles have significant influence on our planetary position relative to the sun, and thus influence our climate, yet are not built into the models used to scaremonger us. We are not just rotating on our axis every 24 hours and circling the sun every year. Our axis is on a 26,000 year (approx) cycle itself and the poles can shift and flip too. We are currently overdue the next reversal of the poles and whilst the poles are currently shifting around 30-40 miles every year these factors will absolutely impact our weather. We are frequently warned about glacial melting, but the glacial formation that is also happening at "record speed" doesn't get reported because it doesn't fit into the globalist narrative. I've used quotation marks because "records" by definition can only represent data that has actually been recorded! Unfortunately, there is evidence that old data is being altered retrospectively in order to fit the narrative too. As George Orwell said in 1984, "Whoever controls the past controls the future"....
Astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark provides the data that correlates solar flares with changes here on Earth. If ever there was doubt that the sun has a major impact on our weather this evidence dispels it.
The fact that solar activity is not included in climate change models would seem to me to be a major omission that brings the validity of any prediction made without including this factor into significant doubt.
In this interview with Dr Judith Curry, she explains how ditching fossil fuels as climate warmists would have us do would condemn developing countries to ongoing poverty and will cause much suffering and death; a point not lost on Dr Peterson in his various interviews below with scientists, including Dr Curry and others who are equally highly qualified to comment. She makes the case for sticking with fossil fuels until the alternative technologies have evolved sufficiently to replace what we use today - a much more practical and realistic approach given that neither wind nor solar farms are capable of producing sufficient and constant energy, and batteries are not currently able to store sufficient reserves either. We should also remember that fossil fuels have evolved from plant matter, and as such are an effective store of past solar energy!
Dr Jordan B. Peterson is a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, YouTube personality, best-selling author and host of the #1 Education Podcast, "The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast". He is well worth subscribing to and has done a number of interviews with highly qualified scientists who are considered expert in the field of climate change.
As Dr Peterson points out, once you start with a premise that human over-population is the root cause of climate change and impending doom, the logical conclusion and action for those in power is to implement policies that no longer support population growth and expansion at best, and at worst legislate for active population reduction. Who decides which groups or individuals are surplus to requirements? Far from the evidence being "owned" as stated by ex-NZ Premier Jacinda Arden, there are many eminent and learned scientists who have been suppressed for many years who disagree. They put forward very strong arguments to support the idea that human activity causing destructive climate change is a hoax.
Many countries who would be considered to be "developed nations" have proven that with wealth there is a natural reduction in family size that frequently fails to maintain the 2.1 children per adult couple ratio required to maintain a population. This is true of many Western countries, and never in history has such a population decline ever been reversed. This tends to result in countries with an aged population where Governments have spent all the pension money that was never put aside as any other pension scheme is legally required to do. The burden for the aged then falls on the diminished younger working generation. Depopulation would suit Governments very much better than you might have thought. The answer to the question about how the global population can be stabilised at sustainable levels, is to improve the standards of living and wealth of those nations who are currently considered to be poor. Rather than hinder their development through the restricted use of fossil fuels, they should be allowed to develop and improve their situation as we once did. With better education and standards of living comes better innovation of solutions for reducing pollution and delivering affordable energy etc. The current path advocated by those at the head of the industrial multi-national conglomerates and corporations (ie those who head the WEF) who have presided over the development of many of the world's problems to date is the exact opposite of what is required, but of course maintains their elite status and privilege, and gets Goverments out of the pensions hole they've dug for themselves...
If you now knowingly and willingly advocate that climate change is the result of too many people in the world, then you too must also support the type of policies that remove fundamental rights and freedoms from those people who you believe should be prevented from breeding and/or living. You cannot have it both ways. Be careful what ideologies you are prepared to support.
Although Dr Judith Curry tells Dr Peterson that the models used to support the whole climate change narrative are OK. I'm not sure how they can be when certain important factors aren't included according to other Drs and Professors who also doubt the climate predictions. Even assuming that the models are largely correct, Dr Curry explains how only the extremes of the predictions were supported by the IPCC for many years in order to push the scaremongering. It seems like the IPCC are starting to soften this extreme line in recent months, no doubt in readiness to deny that they are responsible for the hoax when it fully emerges into greater public recognition for what it is. The problem is that the narrative based on the famous "hockey stick curve" has been established in peoples' minds for too long, and they've invested too much effort and "face" in the narrative to want to change their position now. Dr Curry explains that this hockey stick curve was heavily biased and manipulated, and thus has little to no justification in reality.
This video reveals and discusses that the Eastern Pacific Oxean is in fact cooling and not warming, and that various naturally occurring weather cycles have combined in a way that contradicts future predictions. So what is really going on?
Yet another Professor, this time of Physics at Princeton University, Dr William Happer explains that there is no climate crisis and that CO2 levels can be very much dependent on the time of day and proximity to trees where the measurements are taken! How many of these factors are taken into consideration when data is recorded? When the CO2 levels can vary as much as 100% within a day, it isn't hard to see how data could be manipulated to fit the desired outcome.
Obviously, this is only one of the many points he makes in the video, otherwise it would be very much shorter!
Prof Ian Plimer discusses his take on climate change and reveals how data in Australia is being retrospectively altered to fit the desired narrative. If this isn't proof of a manufactured hoax scenario, I don't know what is?
We have seen in the last 3 years, since 2020, how eminent scientists and Drs who didn't agree with the COVID pandemic narrative were suppressed and silenced, so don't be surprised that you haven't heard about the eminent scientists in the climate field who speak out against the narrative here too.
True Science welcomes open debate and challenge of the facts and their interpretation in order to try to establish the truth. Suppression and censorship must be considered admission of guilt and a non-science driven agenda.
This video by Prof Ian Plimer is a lecture he gave as a Geologist's view of climate change at the 15th International Conference on Climate Change 2023 arranged by the Heartland Institute.
He starts by noting that "you will not find any people in my profession who would claim that humans can change a major planetary system." Then he explains the fundamentals of the causes of climate change that we can tell from the geological history of the planet. He, shows that there are a variety of planetary cycles going back to the end of the Pleistocene glaciation nearly 15,000 years ago that suggest we are due for another long-term cooling trend, not global warming.
Energy expert Mark Mills speaks at SKAGEN Funds New Years Conference 2023
When it is clearly obvious and well known that the so-called "green" energy solutions create considerable environmental damage (mining for materials, and then landfill at obsolescence) employ exploitative child labour in the mines and factories, and use more fossil fuels in their production and maintenance than the resultant "green" energy can replace, then you know the whole story is just for show and there's something else going on...
One of the things blamed for increasing CO2 and used to try to justify reducing farming and switching people away from meat to plant-based diets and frankenfoods, is the fact that cattle produce and release methane which is a greenhouse gas. As usual, the data and facts are manipulated to suit the desired narrative. The fact is that there is a 10 year carbon cycle is conveniently ignored. It also makes no sense to blame cattle for methane production when you consider that the bacteria that generate it within their rumen and digestive tract do so from the grass, hay and silage that the cattle eat. Had this forage not been consumed it would have rotted down and produced methane anyway.
As this video from UC Davis, CA explains, methane from cattle has been given an undeserved bad name, and we need to think differently about cattle farming. Of course this should be considered within a proper regenerative mixed farming program where livestock production and arable are properly combined in true crop and field rotation style as traditional farming used to before large scale monoculture production took over.
When utilised properly, cattle farming becomes part of the farming solution and isn't the problem we are still being told it is.
As Dr Peterson sometimes points out in his videos, there has been something like a 15% increase in vegetation growth in recent years as a result of the increase in CO2. This technique is often used in greenhouses to help grow crops. Increasing CO2 should therefore arguably be welcomed rather than condemned. Not only does this increase in greenery increase photosynthesis and thus the conversion of CO2 to O2, but if cultivated as food crops it means that we are more able to feed those who have least food in, or on the brink of starvation.
As the TED Talk from 2014 by Alan Savory explains, herd farming with movement to reproduce the large scale migrations across the plains of old not only stops desertification but helps recover the soil, making it productive once again. This activity can easily offset the CO2 from fossil fuels burnt by cars, but we don't get told those sorts of facts.
Instead, the agrochemical industry has continued to dominate and destroy the traditional farming methods that are not only most sustainable for the farmers but also for the land. Part of the plan for Totalitarian control is to destroy food farming as it should be, and to switch the land into farming monoculture "ingredients" for use in processed frankenfoods that do not promote health but instead help keep the masses under the control of the globalist few. As Henry Kissinger once said, "Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."
Agroecology applies ecological principles to agriculture, and is a key strategy for mitigating and adapting to climate change. In addition it boosts biodiversity and food security.
In this video, Dr. Maywa Montenegro, an assistant professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz and Dr Vandana Shiva, an iconic Indian scientist and agricultural activist explain the essence and application of agroecology.