13. Climate change.
"Doomsday cultists love to show you this graph;
It's the same one that Al Gore used in his movie with the clips plagiarized from other fictional movies. It shows the years from 1850 to about 2000, and nothing from before 1950, and nothing from the past 10 years because its been getting cooler. Now here's some graphs that you don't see;
When you look at all the data, which is about 100 times more than the slice that Gore used. You see that this is a normal cycle, and it's been going on since before humans were even on the planet."
"The proposed government solutions don't even lower greenhouse emissions. All they do is create an expensive middle man. The normal process as it stands now, goes like this; raw resources are processed by factories and businesses into consumer products, which consumers buy, so their money goes to the factory, and some pollution will be made in this process. The government solution is the exact same thing, only they allow more pollution so long as these factories and businesses buy carbon credits from the IPCC, which is just a clique of elitist control freaks that say 'you have to buy carbon credits from us' so that you have an allotment of how much you can pollute, how much you can produce, which means it's going to cost more for factories and businesses to make finished products, which means that it's going to cost more for consumers to buy these products.
It's just like a sales tax. What happens when the sales tax goes up? Let's say it goes from 6% to 8%. Does the factory actually pay anything more? Not really. You do. [The price of] Every item in the store goes up 2%. It's whatever the price was plus the tax. If the tax goes up, then the tax is higher, and all that happens is that you have to pay more when you go shopping. It's not really a punishment on the factory. It's mostly a punishment on you, the public. That's who's really going to have to pay for the carbon credits. These people (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will make trillions because there are so many products and transactions, and if they (the public) have to buy carbon credits, because government forces it, then they have a nice middle man that can profit from pollution. That doesn't mean that they're going to make less pollution if they're making profits from it, you have carte blance to make as much as you want, double the pollution we have now by 2030, no problem.
There is an extra layer of evil here, though. Smaller businesses, and agribusinesses especially, you've all heard the cow farts motif, they have to decide whether they want to sell their allotments to a 3rd party, or purcahse credits themselves but they're only allowed to produce x amount. Well, these bigger businesses are happy to buy from the smaller ones, rather than from the IPCC, which they're allowed to do. But that would give them a tighter monopoly around distribution, because (when it comes to) these smaller factories and businesses, why should they produce and work when they can just sell their allotment and make money from that? And so ranches and all your agribusinesses are going to get more and more monopolized, which takes out competition, which means the prices are gonna go up, (and) in addition to that, they're going up because of this carbon credit system, so they're going to make more money, and you are either going to have to buy less stuff, have less stuff or pay more, and you usally going to have to pay for things that you can't say no to like gasoline. Not many people just drive around for fun. They drive to work and back, they drive to school and back. They're not just driving for the sake of driving. Most people don't even like to drive. They do it because it's a necessity.
It will not curb pollution. It has nothing to do with the environment. This is about creating a middle man so that they can enrich themselves off of the process of people buying things. They're using Chicken Little tactics to scare you into saying that the end is near, and they have government funded pressure groups to get the Paris Accords signed by different nations. Pollution is not reduced. Pollution and consumption are simply made more expensive by creating a do-nothing middle man under the theme of environmentalism."
- Climate alarmist debunked in minutes
Climate Change "science" has POLITICAL bias
"Climate change!!! Don't be Anti Science!! There is a consensus! But science!... It's false dichotomy to assert that skepticism in a scientific claim is anti-science. No one is questioning the validity of the scientific method, they're questioning the corrosive influence of politics in science. Climate change has political bias. Denying that there is a political push behind this is to deny reality.
Controlling gas emissions means control over energy and agriculture. It's the new way to oppress the third world. Politics effects what we are told science says. They used to say smoking cigarettes was healthy too and they knew it wasn't. Admitting it led to cancer took pulling teeth. But the tobacco lobby got the results it wanted for decades. Lobbying had marijuana painted as "reefer madness" and it was not. That doesn't mean it is healthy but it was certainly not what it was exaggerated to be. It wont make you blind, jump out a window, or play the piano too fast. Over and over again agriculture lobbies have created the latest dietary fads about foods and which are health and what is so bad for you. Dietary fads change like the direction of the wind.
It's about money not science especially when you are relying on correlation studies and statistics. Statistics can be stretched and fudged (faked). They are not at all a hard science like chemistry or physics. We can't even predict daily weather much less a hundred year scale. The warming and cooling cycle has existed longer than people have been on the planet. Cherry picking a graph that starts at the industrial revolution and ignoring everything before it, is not science. It's government. It's as honest as saying Iran is enriching uranium for a bomb. They are not and we know they are not. You need over 90% for a bomb and they were in the 3% range. Again science has been brow beaten by government.
Universities need government funding. It's easy to get people to fall in line when you equate skeptics to global warming as anti-science. It's like saying opposing the war is makes you against the troops. No one wants that stigma so they stay quiet. A lot of smart people fear voicing support for Donald Trump because the media branded him a sexist racist xenophobe. And no leftist especially, wants that stigma. The odd thing is the very opposite is true. It's the extremist leftist identity politics obsessed left who is prejudice and witch hunting. They ignore science when it comes to things like there being only two genders. Again that ordeal is political not scientific. Based on Biology one can not simply deny physical reality through the magic of self identification. Well at least not unless enough people scream at you and call you prejudice unless you comply.
I'm telling you science is not pure. It is polluted by politics. Climate change is a gambit to control the third world. Now just because politics influences science that doesn't mean we should doubt every issue. But it does mean that we should be allowed to within reason. In History, consensus has been broken many times in science. Even saying the earth is flat was something that had been debunked for ages, but the belief was promoted for as long as it was for political reasons. The Church had said the earth was flat and religion and government were one in the same. A round earth undermined the Bible and the validity of the religion. And so naysayers had their books burned or were put in prison or were even killed. Eventually commerce won the day and so the belief in the round Earth for trade sake was finally allowed to disseminate.
If you want to talk about climate change with a skeptic of political purity not of science, then do it. But don't be smug and dismissive. You may know about science. but if you dont know about Politics and History too then you dont really understand at all why people are doubting the new chicken little, Noah's Ark story."
More content:
Mike Rivero and Ryan Dawson on Climate Change (39:41 long)
Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? - Questions For Corbett
altCensored playlist Climate change
CLIMATEGATE: A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY/THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE
If you are super-interested in the details, listen to these 2 videos: