The Climate Change Hoax (Or Not?)
If you choose to read this, empty your bias first
Let me start with a quote I saw this week:
There is no justice, there is only power
Think about that for a few seconds. What you call justice today is power demonstrated. Keep that in your mind as I analyze the climate issue from my perspective.
I do not hope to change your mind or change your views, I just hope you would see these things from another point of view
This whole thing took on a new fire recently when a young girl gave a fired-up speech before the UN. Of course, she was advocating for changes regarding the issue of climate change. But before we go there, let’s look into some modern history.
About 2 decades ago, a certain high-profile politician from the US announced that the ice caps in the north pole and the south pole would melt off as a result of “climate change”. And it hasn’t, years after he said it’s supposed to happen. (Only God knows how much money they used that to raise).
The only thing was that then, it was called global warming. That is a term I can relate well to. When the term was failing to convey their idea properly, it became climate change.
What is climate change?
From what I can understand from what is being peddled around, it is an unfavorable change in the climate caused primarily by human activities that will make the earth unhabitable eventually.
Now, here is where the problem begins. I was taught in school that the climate changes every 25–35 years. And that it has it’s own cycle just as the yearly seasons.
In fact, I read an ancient text once that speaks of the place currently known as the Sahara desert today as a rainforest. Also, there was another text that referred to an area that is frozen today as a river.
I am not saying those are facts that must be believed, it just gets me curious about a lot of things. Here is another fact; there was an explosion in a certain area that was likened to the force of a nuclear bomb. The only thing was that it took place before humans dreamed of an atomic bomb. So, what was it? We don’t know till today.
I get seriously pissed off when people try to make judgments from incomplete information. If we don’t know something, let us keep researching instead of drawing conclusions. But apparently, it’s not so with climate change.
I know you will bring up the report that says 97% of scientists agree there is a climate crisis. But I did my research on that too. Turns out it is a cunny make-up.
Here is a very good argument I encountered; scientists who affirm climate change were not researching to see if climate change is real or not. They are researching on the premise that it exists and are purely looking for evidence to back it up.
The funds disbursed for climate change research would definitely not be given to a scientist who has an iota of doubt about climate change. And if you are given funds to find evidence of climate change, would you come at the end to say there is none? You would find something to point to! And for most people, they’ll find something and say there’s more to study for the funds to keep coming in. My point is that the research is biased from the base.
I found another compelling argument for climate change. Before I go there, it is worth mentioning that various propaganda has been launched through the years in the name of saving the environment. Such as the depleting ozone layer. One way or another, that is not important anymore. Also, I found people who are older than I am (in age) and they talked about “the coming ice age” as the propaganda they grew up to.
The other argument I found for climate change was the benefit of it even if it is a hoax. And I find that a very smart point. They mentioned healthier cities, renewable energy sources, etc. Elon Musk agrees with that narrative (of course, he manufactures electric cars ☺).
Here is the problem with that school of thought. If you have lived in this world long enough, you’ll know that it takes just one thing to ruin a 100-years work. Construction takes days, destruction just takes a few minutes (maximum).
The problem of the path they are suggesting is that we would NEVER get there
Never! It will always be from one thing to another.
I watched an analogy by a professor on sustainability and he said that we are not going to get things right by reducing or cutting back. The more we reduce and cut back, the more we will have to reduce and cut back until we cannot survive anymore.
And even though the endpoint is such a beautiful sight (or I should call it a mirage), the analogy suggests that the only people who will suffer are the rich people benefiting from oil. That is something that made me chuckle.
All the seriously rich people I know will probably make more billions from whatever climate change plan they come up with. This is because they are the ones that will get all the contracts and in the end, the middle-class and the poor will pay for it in taxes. That is because the rich are wealthy enough to get into the tax loopholes.
I have had this climate change argument with some of my dear friends and in every case, I have not found a compelling case for me to buy it. So those peddling the climate change narrative, what could be in it for them? In cases like this, money is always involved in some way.
If they have chosen to fight climate change with innovation and their own resources, it would have been great! But the problem is that they want to fight it with state resources.
They want to fight “climate change” with government policies and government money. I strongly oppose
I believe if you want to fight climate change, do it like Elon Musk is doing it. Create your own business and make alternatives! In fact, if you do that I’ll be willing to help and support you in ways I can. But if you carry placards on the street or go throw a tantrum before the UN, I’d be pissed off.
I believe the climate change propaganda is a device to rig the game. Yes, they gain money but money is not the main aim. The main aim is power. The natural course of life is that power is earned. But instead of earning the right to power, they want to rig it by inciting gullible people who will hand over power to them on a platter because of their cause. Go look at history, every time power is handed over like this, it ends in tragedy.
Here is my own bias: I don’t believe in the claims of “climate change”. But the reason is that I have seen no convincing proofs. And I have studied the subject quite a bit. But anyway, my agreement or disagreement doesn’t make much difference. However, if the beautiful future of pure air, a renewable energy source is your goal, I bond with you. In fact, I have things I plan to do to play a part in that. Just not under the cloak of “climate change”.
I believe in innovation and invention. If technology created the problem, then technology should solve it (not policy). Let’s take the issue of clean air as an example.
If the air in a city is contaminated and bad for breathing, instead of halting the human activities that produce it, why not solve the problem directly? Why not create a device that sucks in the contaminated air and releases clean air? Then have that device stationed throughout the city. It seems like a pretty easy solution. But you know what, if that solution exists, they wouldn’t share it because it doesn’t give them power. And tech like that exists today (that we can copy and make more of)! We call it trees! Ever heard of that?
But you know, it will never be enough.
We live in a world of selective answers and narratives. I hope you can understand. I have been studying marketing in recent times and it is amazing how much marketing psychology has influenced our lives to date. In some cases, it is very good (like in the case of toothpaste). And in other cases, it is jaw-dropping (like in the case of diamonds).
This is my verdict on climate change. I think it is propaganda that gives power, significance, and purpose to some people (or keeps power in their hands). Think about people who are where they are today because of the climate change noise.
The earth is far from perfect. In fact, I believe it has been on a gradual deteriorating state for a long time now (thousands of years). Some human activities are indeed not good for the environment, but over time we would balance ourselves naturally.
However, every conscious effort made to combat “climate change” wouldn’t make any significant difference in the long run
I know what you would say now: the propaganda will inspire some people and perhaps even you. Nope! The propaganda pisses me off every time I hear it. All those who act because of the propaganda will struggle and give up eventually. The problem solvers will always be people who felt a particular problem directly (and hence, really understand it).
Placard carriers will always be placard carriers. News contributors and TV reporters will always be that. Politicians will always be politicians.
What was that quote I started with?
I rest my case