by Mustang
I am not sure how one discusses the “climate” of a mass of molten iron, but to keep it simple, the earth was, at one time, unsuitable for life (as we understand the term). Over time, the Earth cooled. That’s one kind of change. But again, how does one open a discussion about climate change without an atmosphere?
Now, as it happens, there is a pretty interesting discussion about Earth’s beginnings – by scientists, philosophers, and technologists. They conclude that the Earth is positioned precisely where it must be to sustain life. If the orbit of the Earth were closer to the sun or further away, life on Earth would be impossible. As I said, it is an interesting discussion.
At some point, though, the Earth did acquire an atmosphere, and since then – some billions of years ago, planet Earth has experienced warming and cooling periods. I don’t know why. I do know that it is a cyclical phenomenon.
From the estimated creation of Earth as an orbital sphere, it took 4,499,998,018 years before the creation of The Weather Channel (TWC) in 1982. John Coleman was one of the founding meteorologists. Back then, the weather reporting network was owned by ABC-Chicago as part of its Good Morning, America program. This televised weather reporting and prediction service initially offered the American people objective and valuable information.
As the channel’s services and products expanded, so did the viewership and its economic value. Then, in 2008 (around the time of Obama), TWC was sold to NBC Universal (backed by Bain Capital and the Blackstone Group). Keeping with their very peculiar agenda, the new owners began to change their format from weather science to political science advocacy – a term some call “junk science.”
Four years after the creation of Landmark Communications (TWC), the United Nations Organization (UNO) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Notice that the UNO was not titled as a research agency to develop scientific data useful to anyone. It skipped all that and went right to “climate change.”
No one I know disputes climate change; they do quibble about what causes it. In over 4.5 billion years, humans never recorded meteorological information until 1880 – or 143 years ago. Another way of looking at this gap is 4,499,998,120 years after the beginning of the earth.
A rational question then becomes, if no one has been keeping meteorological records until only 143 years ago, how can anyone say with certainty that the sky is falling? That is my point. There is no certainty about the apocalyptical blather being broadcasted on TWC or through the IPCC. If it is true that there is no certainty to the dire predictions, then what is the purpose of this constant blather?
As it happens, there is a purpose. Before we get to that, however, here are a few examples of how “scientific data” has been manipulated since 2008 to convince us that the sky is falling – and that responsibility for a falling sky falls directly into our collective laps.
In recording temperatures to support the contention that the earth is getting warmer, “scientists” employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) placed their scientific instruments on the side of blacktop highways, in the western deserts, and at the center of large cities where man-made environments would guarantee high-temperature readings. NOAA, by the way, was created within the U.S. Commerce Department. There are at least 12,000 employees and an annual budget of $6.9 billion (as of 2022).
The IPCC, it was found, made its predictions in such a way as to create business opportunities for those who founded it and guided it. It was a situation not unlike a former Vice President of the United States telling everyone that the science associated with falling sky predictions is unchallengeable. Nothing in science is unchallengeable.
One should note, as well, that Western newspapers gobble up nearly every dire prediction issued by IPCC, NOAA, and its surrogate, TWC, and publish them as if those predictions are valid. They are not. And if they were valid, why would all these environmental leaders fly to conferences using the instruments they claim to threaten the planet?
One would not know this from the media coverage. Still, no data supports the illogical conclusion that every weather event (high tides, hurricanes, tornadoes, or tsunamis) results from increasing carbon dioxide levels. And if they were, why would the UNO continue allowing deforestation? Don’t we rely on trees for our oxygen? In any case, should one suppose that natural scientists understand that climate is not weather?
Usually, bad weather is just that. To these fraudulent scientists, however, bad weather is an “extreme climate event.” It is malarky. An editorial in the Washington Examiner argues that these junk scientists aim “to turn the boring reality of gradual global warming by a few degrees over a century into something with a bit of science fiction pizzazz that can capture the public’s imagination. Thus, environmental extremists habitually say things to shock people, dressing up their unwarranted alarmism with scientific jargon.”
Here’s what is odd about the entire weather scam: the most prominent doomsayers don’t take practical measures that could quickly end most carbon emissions almost overnight. Why? Because their purpose isn’t weather or climate phenomenon – it is much worse. It is to force humanity into a poorer lifestyle and to impede what they view as an evil capitalist system and its economic development. If these people were genuinely concerned about the environment, they would become zealots of natural gas production and expand reliable nuclear and hydroelectric power.
Thoughtful Americans are not fooled. If people continue taking the IPCC, NOAA, and TWC seriously, they’ll soon consume their own waste and be happy to do it if it means saving the planet. Is the sky falling? Not at all – it is only the greatest scam in human history.
It’s all about truth…