I hear too often that the debate over climate change is over. The science is settled. We’re bad for the planet, and we should hand over control of industry, and daily life, to the government to make sure we our planet doesn’t implode, our surface doesn’t explode, and we all freeze to death…or burn to death…er- something will happen. Oh! It should be noted that if we don’t do it now, we’ll all die within the next 10 or 20 years…or so they’ve said for decades.

I’m sure we’re due for another date soon, and Al Gore can put it on a billboard, right next to the one that predicts the date of the Biblical apocalypse I see on back roads. Whoever is closest to the actual end of the world wins free Arby’s.

One thing has always irked me about the climate change alarmism that pollutes my news feeds (SWIDT?), and you’ve probably noticed it too. It looks an awful lot like the alarmism I see about almost everything else the left gets all doomsday about. From gun control, to video games making me hate women, it’s always the same message; “give us control right away, or some really bad things are going to happen.”

But the bad thing never comes. Gun ownership has only gone up, crime has only gone down, and video games have yet to convince me that any women but the intersectional feminist busybodies are trash.

But climate change is different. So widespread and government assisted is its propaganda, that they have people thoroughly convinced that there is no questioning the church of climatism. They label skeptics as deniers, which is a religious term used back in the day to describe heretics. Bill Nye, one of the church’s bishops, has suggested that maybe these deniers deserve some jail time. They throw up charts and graphs that are often refuted or debunked, or hide data that is completely inconvenient to their narrative, then ridicule and demean anyone who pulls a Martin Luther and suggests something otherwise.

Yet the skepticism persists, and climate alarmists and their supporters can’t figure out why.

Maybe it’s because the science just isn’t settled. Is there changing climate? Yes, there is. It’s climate. That’s what it does. What there isn’t a consensus on, is whether or not we as humans are having as deleterious an effect on the planet as alarmists like to proclaim. Alarmists like to claim that 97% of scientists agree that the Earth is going bad, but even that 97% statistic is a fabrication cooked up after some fancy number manipulation.

Ian Tuttle at National Review covered this in detail in a 2015 article.

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

So it’s not true that 97% of scientists agree, it’s just more sensationalism to convince you that the debate is over, and you should stop your doubting, Thomas.

But they have a lot to answer for. For instance, why has there been no significant warming for almost 20 years now if the planet is “cooking.” It’s “the pause,” and when confronted about it by Ted Cruz, not even the President of the Sierra Club could come back with anything against it except that 97% of scientists agree with him, after embarrassingly having to pause himself to gather talking points – unsuccessfully mind you – from an aid.

You can see the interaction for yourself.

He does make mention that the NOAA had debunked the pause with recent findings, but when requested to give up those findings by congress, NOAA refused, stating

“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” the agency told Nature. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

No. No it’s not. Especially when you’re a taxpayer funded organization holding onto information meant for public consumption, and there are organizations out there debunking your claim of debunking numbers.

So it all looks really bad for climate alarmists. They want to lock me up for skepticism, they’re fudging numbers, and hiding info. I have to admit, even I’m confused as to what the actual truth is about climate change is. But as many scientists seem to agree, no one can actually predict future climate. Regardless, we still see groups and politicians telling us we’re going to die of climate in a matter of years.

Richard Lindzen, former MIT professor, and atmospheric physicist, did a recent video on the climate of the climate change war. He explains that there is a lot of money and power tied up in climate change. I suggest you take a moment to watch it below, as he highlights some basic facts about what’s really happening.

Finally, I find a striking partnership between climate change alarmism and anti-capitalism. You can see just how anti-capitalist the tendencies get by just how many anti-capitalists readily jump onboard with the climate cause.

Screen-Shot-2014-09-21-at-3.49.37-PM-620x457

 

climate_change_capitalism

ppl_climate1

Naomi Klein is a leading voice within the climate change activism crowd, and she’s a dyed in the wool anti-capitalist, who believes that the most successful economic system the world has ever seen is incompatible with climate change, and thus, should be done away with. Regardless of her stance, she’s been invited to the Vatican to help come up with a plan a solution. She’s had puff pieces written on her by major outlets such as the Guardian.

“Klein understands people like Abbott. Global warming threatens what they hold most dear: free markets, limited government regulation and unending material progress. So it makes sense, as Klein said on the ABC’s Q&A this week, that the political right is often so resistant to climate change.”

Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, is an avowed socialist (please don’t give me that “democratic socialist bull, as there’s no difference) who places climate change at the top of his list of concerns. He likes to blame climate change for everything from problems in the minority community, to terrorism. His plan for dealing with it? If you said “regulating you and the private sector,” then you’re completely correct.

“The US must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good paying jobs.”

In what reads like a college communist’s pamphlet, Sanders fires off cliches like “the debate is over,” and even uses the 97%-of-scientists-agree schtick on his website. He blames big oil, and lobbyists before promising to the kick them out of Washington, and transforming our system so that oil companies take a back seat to renewable energy companies. I guess he doesn’t remember Solyndra.

Sanders even joins Nye on by saying he will “bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change.” Essentially, punishing people for practicing capitalism in the face of science that isn’t as settled as he would like us to believe.

This just furthers my suspicion that “climate change,” and things like “Earth Day,” and “Climate Summits” aren’t at all about actual climate change. I feel it’s more about power. Clearly, the whole story is not being told, but it matters little. What matters is punishing industry, corporations, and “the 1%.” It’s about government regulation over business, and more money flowing to those who promise to dole it out once seized, but have a funny habit of putting a lot of that money in their own pockets. Whatever pagan mysticism this quest for cash generates is just more fuel for the fire.

People will march in the streets with weird floats they worshipcelebrity hypocrites will proselytize on behalf of the church of climatism, while themselves denying the faith, and all the while, anyone who doesn’t show anything less than reverence to the cause will be called names and ridiculed.

And all this to achieve political power. The debate is settled. Climate change as we’ve been shown is complete crap.