The climate change agenda has to be one of the biggest scams in the history of the world, if not the single biggest scam. It has persisted for many decades with the purpose of manipulating people’s behavior for the benefit of the world’s political elite. It went by the label “global warming” several decades ago, eventually acquired the label “climate change,” and is now being called a “climate crisis” by the Biden administration. However, the facts and statistics show that there isn’t a valid reason to be even remotely alarmed about the earth’s climate or, even more ridiculous, to think that we can noticeably affect the climate by our behavior and activities on this planet.
History of Earth’s temperatures.
Obviously, one of the most important data sets to consider is the history of Earth’s average temperature. The following graph shows Earth’s average temperature over the last 500 million years.
Right now, the average temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit, or 15 degrees Celsius, which is relatively quite cool compared to the range of temperatures in the graph above. Of course, humans almost certainly wouldn’t survive in some of the higher temperatures shown in the graph, but what could really cause such a large increase in temperature that humans would no longer be able to survive?
The drastic changes in temperature that have occurred at certain times in the past were caused by major natural events such as asteroids hitting Earth or extreme volcanic activity. By comparison, to what extent could human activity possibly cause the average temperature to rise? The graph above does little to answer that question, but the graph immediately below shows more detail about the frequency of oscillations in more recent times.
The graph shows a clear tendency of the temperature to oscillate a few degrees above or below the dashed line labeled “1850-1900 average”. A NASA webpage states that the average temperature in 2023 was about 2.45 degrees Fahrenheit or 1.36 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 average. Looking at the graph above, that increase is still well within the range of recent oscillations. Many Internet sources show a graph of average temperature only from 1880 to present, which doesn’t reveal the level of context provided by the two graphs above.
Since the slight rise in temperature from 1880 to present fits well within the range of oscillation in the graph above, how can we determine whether human activity is really playing a role? Climate alarmists would have us believe that the data from 1880 to present exists in a vacuum and that human industrial activity and burning of fossil fuels are the causes. Their reasoning is that those human activities release carbon compounds into the air and that the additional carbon from those activities is causing the atmosphere to absorb more energy from the sun, thereby heating the atmosphere. But there are serious flaws in this argument.
Generally, an increase in atmospheric carbon does cause more absorption of the sun’s light energy, which then turns into increased heat energy. But the rate of carbon emission from human activities is extremely low and practically negligible compared to the changes in atmospheric composition caused by major natural events that have caused serious climate change at certain times throughout Earth’s more distant past. And with such a low rate of carbon emission by human activities, there is plenty of time for many natural processes on Earth to adjust and counter that slight increase in carbon. Combine this argument with the fact that the temperature rise from 1880 to present is well within the normal temperature oscillations, and it’s clear that there’s no cause for alarm.
Truth about natural disaster trends.
In addition to average temperature changes over time, climate alarmists like to claim that natural disasters and their impacts are getting worse as a result of climate change, which again they allege is caused by human activities. But even if climate change were caused by humans, the natural disaster deaths data doesn’t suggest an ongoing worsening in natural disasters. In fact, the data suggests the exact opposite. The following graph shows the average annual number of deaths for each decade going back to 1900.
The source of the above graph doesn’t explain the huge increase in number of recorded deaths in the 1920s compared to the two prior decades, but it likely has to do with improvements in record keeping. What the graph does show is that the number of deaths declines in almost every decade since the 1920s. When this data is considered in conjunction with the world’s population growth over those same decades, the decline in deaths is even more pronounced. The link provided above has additional graphs to help explain this.
The same human activities and industrialization that climate alarmists blame for climate change actually help in many ways to reduce deaths and damage caused by natural disasters, both preemptively and responsively. Yet climate alarmists have argued that natural disasters and resulting deaths and devastation are getting worse. This argument is typically driven not by facts or data but by anecdotal expressions that it SEEMS or FEELS like natural disasters are getting worse. These expressions are usually driven by the ever increasing media fixation on the extent of devastation caused by the natural disasters, a phenomenon which again has no basis in facts or data.
One type of disaster worth specifically mentioning is wildfires since climate alarmists have tended to focus heavily on wildfires in connection with climate change. If climate change were truly the cause of wildfire problems, then that means the fires would have to be caused exclusively naturally without human aid in igniting them. But one stubborn and inconvenient fact is that, according to the National Park Service, approximately 85% of all wildfires are caused by humans doing reckless things and even committing arson in some cases. So, another climate alarmist theory is again refuted by actual facts.
(Blog continues below)
Advertisement, links to Amazon product page.
Recommended reading.
– Derek Hall, blog author, website administrator
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Image is from Amazon product page.
We will not suddenly run out of fossil fuels!
Another occasional argument from climate alarmists is that the world could suddenly run out of fossil fuels one day and that the world would suddenly grind to a halt. But this argument is amateur and unrealistic. If the world were ever on the verge of running out of fossil fuels, it would happen very gradually rather than suddenly. Peter Schiff, a financial and economic expert, once explained this quite well.
There are many many oil wells all around the world and likely many more undiscovered. In order for the world to suddenly run out of fossil fuels, that means that all those oil wells would have to dry up all at the same time with no new oil wells left to replace them! Clearly, that is absurdly unrealistic. Instead, the oil wells would dry up one at a time, and this process would likely span many decades or maybe even many centuries. Every time the world’s supply of oil shrinks even a little, the prices of oil and all refined products derived from it would gradually tick upward. Under this scenario, these prices would eventually reach a point where private industry would begin phasing in alternative solutions out of economic necessity and rational analysis, not because of climate alarmism. Even in that scenario, fossil fuels would likely still not be totally depleted but would gradually be abandoned and replaced by the most economical alternative solutions.
So, another climate alarmist argument bites the dust! Maybe people should just be thankful that, as gradual as the above-described scenario would likely be, there is currently no indication based in facts or data that we will ever have to face such a scenario.
Earth has endured far worse than anything humans could do.
Just to put into perspective how insignificant our use of fossil fuels is as a potential factor of climate change, let’s consider the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago and mostly killed off the dinosaurs, as described in this article by Mark Kaufman under the subheading “The Chicxulub dinosaur impact”. The article describes that the impact of this asteroid generated 10,000 times the energy of the entire world’s nuclear arsenal. That means that if we engaged in nuclear war with no restraint, we wouldn’t even come remotely close to causing as much damage as this asteroid caused. And most people would agree that nuclear war would be far worse than our routine day-to-day use of fossil fuels. Therefore, by transitive relation, the effects of our use of fossil fuels are negligible compared to the effects of the above-described asteroid. The article mentioned above also describes numerous other objects that have hit Earth throughout the distant past. Typically, these asteroids and other objects did cause significant climate change, but again our use of fossil fuels is negligible compared to these incidents.
Certain other occurrences in Earth’s history, such as periods of significant volcanic or earthquake activity, could have potentially caused substantial changes to the composition of Earth’s atmosphere and therefore could have caused substantial changes to the average temperature and the climate. Again, the extent to which these events are capable of causing such changes is far greater than anything humans are capable of and basically makes our industrial activity and use of fossil fuels negligible by comparison. Earth has a mass of about 6 x 1024 kilograms and a volume of about 260 billion cubic miles. If that tremendous amount of matter occasionally shifts around and releases particles into the atmosphere, such occurrences could easily dwarf any effect humans could have on the climate.
Likely motivations for the climate change agenda.
If you ask average left-leaning people why they align with the left’s positions on climate change, they typically regurgitate left-wing talking points with little or no independent thought of their own. These talking points are typically based on lies and deception or a limited set of facts with insufficient scope and insufficient context. But what are the real reasons that the most prominent politicians and bureaucrats push the climate agenda? The reasoning is usually two-fold: to enable government to take over the means of production in the economy and to get people more dependent on and virtually worshipping the government.
The idea of government taking over the means of production in the economy is precisely the definition of socialism and is also a move toward communism. Ultimately, any politician or bureaucrat who wants socialism will not want to stop there but will eventually want to move to communism. Socialism and communism are both driven by the same basic underlying idea, that government is better suited to own, manage, and distribute property than the private sector. Communism simply takes things a step further by eliminating private property rights altogether. So, these ideas certainly benefit from the left’s climate agenda as the government tries to force society away from fossil fuels and toward electric cars and even exclusively electric (non-gas) household appliances. The track records of socialism and communism are horrible while history proves that capitalism has consistently lifted nations out of poverty. Therefore, the climate agenda is destructive in a variety of ways.
The idea of getting people more dependent on and even virtually worshipping government is consistent with the cult-like following of the climate agenda and the destruction of religion that we have seen. The idea is to break down religion and the free exercise thereof so that the populace no longer turns to God for answers but instead turns exclusively to government. The climate agenda is consistent with these goals as it ultimately seeks to convince people to worship government and make sacrifices to the Earth by willfully depriving themselves of economic benefits without rational reasoning. This relation of ideas further demonstrates how destructive the climate agenda is.
(Blog continues below)
Advertisement, links to Amazon product page.
Recommended reading.
– Derek Hall, blog author, website administrator
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Image is from Amazon product page.
Summary of key points.
- The slight rise in average temperature since approximately 1880 is well within the range of recent oscillations in temperature.
- There is insufficient evidence to verify that human activities are responsible for the slight rise in temperature since 1880.
- Natural disaster deaths have been substantially declining over the decades.
- The idea that we might abruptly run out of fossil fuels is unrealistic.
- Human activity has a negligible effect on the climate, especially compared to certain past natural events.
- There are likely very sinister plans tied to the climate agenda.
Several commentators and experts to follow.
Below is a list of several people who have been known to speak truth about the climate agenda. This is not an endorsement of everything these individuals may say but simply an effort to expand the discussion and be open to additional ideas.
- Alex Epstein, https://energytalkingpoints.com/
- Tony Heller (@TonyClimate), https://realclimatescience.com/
- Marc Morano, https://www.climatedepot.com
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, https://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen
(End of blog. Comments section below.)
The following is a brief video I made a while back quickly summarizing much of the information laid out above. Click the left (or top) frame to view in YouTube or the right (or bottom) frame to view in Rumble.
(The comment form below collects email addresses to help detect and prevent spam. See full privacy policy.)
Leave a Reply