I think it's accurate to say that people are getting programmed en masse (rightly or wrongly) to believe that carbon emissions resulting from human activity are the number one cause of climate change. Before it was colloquially known as climate change, everyone called it global warming, but this shifted rapidly, and we'll get more into that a little later on.
Many of the high-profile people involved in spreading the anthropogenic (or human-caused) global warming hypothesis have ties to companies that sell carbon credits to industry. Corporations who purchase these carbon offsets desire to publicly virtue-signal their level of greenness to rabidly conscientious consumers. Yes, you know the type, people who are hell-bent on "saving the planet" no matter what the costs, benefits, and with virtually no analysis.
These good-hearted and well-meaning folks would watch a two-hour documentary by the likes of Al Gore and having suddenly become climate experts overnight, would run around like Chicken Little with vitriolic claims, and overt grandstanding, that the sky is falling. If you didn't believe what they said, you were "literally" Hitler, a Nazi, or a fascist who wanted nothing more than to watch the world burn.
Let's get back to the shift in language for a moment; The reason the agenda had re-branded was because of the CRU hack of 2009. Diligent hackers, and perhaps insiders as well, exposed the Climatic Research Unit's fraudulent activity. Michael Mann and the efforts of his colleagues to "hide the decline" in temperature data proved to be one of the most notorious revelations in the leak and thus led to the move to embrace the term "climate change." This PR technique was, no doubt, a skillful method by which to skirt pesky arguments about the latest trends in cooling.
Thanks to the CRU hack, Global Warming became an assailable concept. However, nobody can dispute "climate change." I mean, that'd be like denying the fact that weather exists, and to do so would be the height of foolishness. Many against the taxation agenda were not perceptive enough to comprehend the extraordinarily clever alteration in the phraseology.
So, when people used climate change in place of global warming, instead of giving them the proper static they deserved, we just said, "we know what you mean," and gave them a pass. This led to simplified concepts such as "climate deniers," which I can only imagine are people who don't believe in the weather. I mean, it's a truly stupid combination of words. The best kind of propaganda is always the most simple, e.g., "they hate us because of our freedom," or "they think weather doesn't even real."
Let's move away from history and into the obvious. I'm sure you can tell by my biases and the style of writing in this post that I don't buy into the idea that human activity is the leading cause of climate change. I'm not a denier of anthropogenic global warming, and I'm sure we humans have some small effect on our planet's overall temperature. However, I also think humanity's hubris and desire to control all of the things is insatiable.
The climate data in use today goes back 140 years ago to the 1880s, and the reason we only go back this far is that the data is far less reliable the further back you go. I think it has something to do with the frequency and areas wherein the numbers were recorded. The more readings you get from various locations worldwide, the more accurate the models.
It's what you're supposed to believe anyhow—Perhaps they don't want to invoke musings about the extreme cold we faced during the ice ages or the uncomfortably hot weather from medieval times. The latter took place before the industrial revolution, so man's CO2 isn't to blame for it. We are hinging all of our assessments on a tiny fraction in time, the idea we've got a grasp on "what normal is" with regards to the weather is ridiculous.
The self-important notion that earth is here to accommodate humanity, or just because we've had somewhat stable temperatures for the last century, is no sign of what the future holds. There were many extinction level events in the past, and more are to follow in the eons to come. Nature is brutal and unforgiving. Any attempt to adjust the earth's thermostat is a bill of goods sold by men who either want to weaponize the weather or capitalize on your ignorance. You've got to read between the lines and the headlies. I'll leave you with one parting video to get you on your way.
So, the same category of folks who’d suggest that chemtrails are just a nasty conspiracy theory touted by kooks and nutbags have proposed that we deploy stratospheric aerosol injection of chemicals (or chemtrails) into the skies to “potentially” curb global warming.
The program will only cost ten billion dollars a year, and won’t accomplish jack diddly squat on its own (because they’re still planning on hocking carbon credits for private gain). However, it might allow the U.S. to fiddle with regional weather much to the ire of the nation-states who get the raw end of the stick as the U.S. plays at being God. You can’t make this stuff up!
The image above is brought to you courtesy of Pixabay.
