Separating Fact From Fiction On ‘Climate Change’


Why is it easier to find lies in the media about “climate change” than truthful information? Why is honest reporting on the environment an outlier instead of a rule?

Media parrots have said for decades that humans and our use of natural resources are killing the planet and that oceans, species, and forests are dying. They report on future predictions, but rarely on scientific facts—so I thought I would fill the vacuum. [emphasis, links added]

We have been told that we are responsible for irredeemable destruction in the Great Barrier Reef, but that is not true. The reef is making a “comeback,” yet we don’t see that story because it doesn’t push the radical green agenda; from a leading oceanographic institution:

In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS)reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years. After recent massive bleaching events impacted nearly 90% of Australia’s corals, it seems that anyone could see this news as a victory. So, why aren’t scientists celebrating?

It was thinning cyclically and naturally, and it has come back cyclically and naturally. Humans didn’t cause the thinning, and government policies didn’t cause the comeback—or we would see the green pushers claiming victory.

After an exponential increase over the last 160 years in natural resource consumption, which is supposedly killing the oceans, an estimated three trillion fish survive.

We are told that we are killing the birds, yet because there are so many of these little creatures, the best guess that scientists have puts the total population somewhere between 200 billion and 400 billion.

Isn’t it sad that the government thinks they know best how to manage nature? See below, via Yahoo News:

To protect an endangered owl species, government biologists propose killing off other owls

That’s what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service argues in its proposal to allow the agency to shoot hundreds of thousands of barred owls over the next 30 years in West Coast forests. The service says the barred owl, which is not native to the region, is crowding out the spotted owl, a close genetic relative.

They are going to kill off hundreds of thousands of owls to protect a “cousin” owl.

The article admits that the spotted owl is not dying because of humans or climate change, but rather because a cousin species is thriving and crowding out the former.

Green pushers also say there are too many humans on the planet… Will they suggest we “kill off” one genetic group to make things more “balanced” for all humans? Perhaps white males?

We are told that we are killing off trees, yet today they estimate that there are over three trillion trees, compared to a previous estimate of 400 billion:

There are an estimated 3.04 trillion trees in the world. That’s about 400 for every human. This figure is way up from the estimate of 400 billion trees that was made just a few years ago.

Why would anyone believe what these “scientists say” if their lazy estimate” was off by over 700%?

I bet they can’t identify any trees that have died off because of a one- to two-degree temperature rise or an increase in CO2which makes plants thrive.

Here are some legitimate scientific facts:

I was in Denver on December 23, 2023, and the national weather report was talking about how warm the country was; the temperature was 55° F, which was 12° above normal.

Then, the meteorologists showed that the record high in Denver for that date was 74° in 1901.

Then on December 24 and 25, the high was around 30°, which was 13° below normal.

Here are the only truthful statements that can come from those facts. Temperatures fluctuate, and Denver’s temperature has been colder “than normal” on December 23 for the last 122 straight years.

Three of the dumbest and most expensive policies that have come from [fifty] years of false dire predictions are:

Carbon credits. Buying and selling worthless pieces of paper do nothing to reduce the carbon from planes, gas-guzzling trucks, or anything else.

Carbon capture schemes. Why the heck would anyone bury CO2, which is a clear, innocuous, non-pollutant gas that makes plants and trees thrive and allows the world to be fed?

Forced E.V. transitions. Forcing people to buy expensive, inefficient, and impractical vehicles powered by a highly flammable pollutant that comes with serious environmental impact (rare earth mineral mining).

We have a clear choice in the election: vote for a dictator who wants to tell everyone what kind of vehicle to drive, what appliances they must use, and how they heat and cool their homes, or vote for a leader who believes in freedom of choice and doesn’t care if you want to buy a battery-operated car or a more affordable and practical gas-powered car.

We have a choice between a politician who is so arrogant he thinks he can control the climate and one who knows he can’t.

Top photo by Giorgia Doglioni on Unsplash

Read more at American Thinker

Trackback from your site.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button