Can the Climate Change Hysteria Be Combated?
Aside from the all-of-a-sudden conditioning on extraterrestrial beings and crafts, the fearmongering headlines about how this is the hottest summer on record and how exercising outdoors is now dangerous because of the extreme heat (so, we should stay inside and be couch potatoes?) is really ramping up. We knew from Project Veritas’ reporting back in 2021 that CNN would be pushing climate change as the next major crisis to be on a repeat loop of propaganda, and since almost all of the mainstream media is controlled by BlackRock and Vanguard, it is not surprising that we are seeing a unified effort to convince people that we need to give up our freedom and modern way of life to save the planet. However, can we combat the climate change narrative with facts and expose government officials and climate experts for the fraudsters that they are?
Even so-called “conservative” news outlets, like the New York Post, are putting out pieces in favor of the narrative. One such article, largely citing CNN and showing that most news that we consume is largely propaganda from the same source (if our media was actual news with real journalists, we would be seeing a wide variety of interpretations on events), talks about how people are ending up in the hospital because the pavement in Arizona is too hot because of climate change. If we analyze this further, we find out that a surge in these types of heat-related injuries corresponds with an increasing intake of drug use (54% of heat-related deaths in 2022 were a result of this). Increasing usage of fentanyl-contaminated methamphetamine causes more people to fall and stay on the ground for extended periods of time. Another reason why heat-related injuries in Arizona are on the rise is due to an increasing population of elderly people and homelessness. In fact, people are more likely to have issues from the heat because they lack shelter, are constantly exposed to the elements, and lack water (30% of such injuries were among homeless people).
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Here we have explanations for why pavement and heat-related injuries are surging, but our propaganda still wants to convince people that it is because of climate change. Do these alternative explanations prove that climate change is fictitious? No, they most certainly do not, but instead of making assumptions about what is occurring, perhaps we should explore all possibilities and use the scientific method. Let us stop with the dogma (declaring something to be a fact simply because the experts said it, without questioning anything, is a phenomenon similar to religious adherence to doctrines).
There is not even a clear consensus on whether heat-related illnesses kill more people than cold-related ones. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) believes that cold weather is worse (to the tune of 1,300 deaths per year from 2016 to 2020 versus 670 deaths per year from the heat). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believes that the opposite is true (134 deaths per year from 1988 to 2017 versus 30 per year from the cold). It gets complicated when you consider that influenza, though not weather-related per se, largely hits people during the winter months and contributes heavily to the number of excessive deaths. Since both weather extremes are generally considered negative toward people’s health, would it really matter if the earth experienced warming or cooling? Is global warming really contributing toward more deaths than otherwise would occur? If we did not experience extreme heat, would there be more cold-related deaths to even out the numbers? How do we know what would occur in alternative universes? Can we really trust the narrative to get us to the truth?
Scientists and historians already agree that the planet has experienced natural Milankovitch (longer-scale) and century-scale cycles that alternate between periods of warming and cooling, due to changes in the sun and ocean circulation patterns, and such examples include: the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 AD) and Little Ice Age (1450 to 1900 AD). Then, of course, there is El Nino and La Nina, which cause ocean temperatures and atmospheric patterns to change for a few years. Currently, we are experiencing El Nino, and according to University of Pennsylvania climate professor Michael E. Mann, this phenomenon is “conspiring” with climate change to exacerbate the situation. Yes, CNN, which argues that conspiracy theories are dangerous to our democracy, ran with this story to convince the public that even though elites, banks, corporations, government officials, and bureaucrats would never collaborate to bring about their desired profits and changes to the world, El Nino and climate change certainly do work together to destroy us. Is El Nino leading to more flooding and heating events this year than in the past? If we already have a reason for why this year is one of the hottest on record, why do we need to pull in climate change as well, unless the objective is to push an agenda over facts?
Why are we so fixated on the narrative that human activity is the largest contributor to the current period of warming (if warming is indeed occurring)? If there are natural periodic cycles, how do we know that humans are causing it this time in history? Could it be more about control of society and pushing off policy agendas that will benefit the elites over the people? Why is it that politicians get to travel around the world in private jets to go to conferences with the theme that we the peasants are contributing too much to the greenhouse effect? If they really wanted to convince us that there was a problem, they would follow their own guidance and walk, or at least travel among their fellow citizens on commercial jets. Why do billionaires and politicians still buy and own property along the coast when that land is due to be taken by the ocean because of rising sea levels? When you are a hypocrite and do not take your own advice seriously, you cannot in good faith expect others to believe you and do what you say.
How do we even know that these are the hottest years in the planet’s history, especially given that scientists agree that certain records can only go back as far as the “mid-20th century?” However, the senior scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center, Jennifer Francis, told CNN that we should assume that these are the warmest years in “at least 100,000 years.” Even the BBC admits that records only go back 150 years, but it is still safe to assume that this is the hottest year in 120,000 years.
I remember from high school that making assumptions about the world instead of observing results and repeating findings is not really how science works, but hey, that is our current expert-run world that we have created. Push the agenda at all costs, regardless of how factual it is. Since we do not have records going back 100,000 years, maybe the Neanderthals were using the scientific method and recording temperatures. At least then we would not have to make educated guesses and push them on the populace as fact (like using fossils to say that the earth was definitely cooler back then, without actual data to back it up).
In addition, 2023 may indeed be gearing up for the hottest year on record, but why does 2017 through 2022 not hold the record to date? No, it is actually 2016 (seven years ago), and some years since 1979 have actually cooled down and then warmed up in subsequent years, indicating that the temperatures are fluctuating and not holding a perfect warming trend. I am not really sure how fluctuating temperature averages and records are proof of global warming, but if that is how we are doing science these days, I guess we should just blindly follow what the experts tell us.
In order to “get people’s attention” with “sensational wording,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres upgraded global warming to “global boiling.” Yes, apparently frightening people into action and exaggerating claims are also part of science. Now that we are at “code red for humanity,” maybe the bigoted Americans and other national governments will finally take action. And, of course, with every bold apocalyptic claim of today, we can look at failed predictions, such as: Americans being forced to ration water and food by 1974 and 1980, environmental catastrophe by the year 2000, an ice age by 2021 or 2031 (in the end, Mother Nature decided to make us sweat instead of freeze), irreversible damage to the environment by 1992, and lack of ability to halt disaster by the year 1999, and then 2012. Now, they have extended the time we have to live until 2030. At least we now have another seven or eight years to be ashamed of ourselves for killing the planet, and it appears that they will continue to make us feel guilty for every single one of them.
Oh, and just like those Antarctic polar sheets were melting, it turns out that now they actually grew in general between 1979 and 2014 and have had a few “rebounds” in recent years (one ice sheet in particular expanded between 2000 and 2020), so even the polar ice caps melting seems to be a farce (though it does appear that the Arctic ice caps may be losing ice, but who even knows?). Scientists are baffled about this, but they continue to press forward with the old narrative, without consideration for alternative views, showing that modern science is actually tainted by dogma and politics. Apparently, it is climate change if the ice caps melt, and it is also climate change if the ice caps grow (they must remain completely static for there to be no disaster looming).
With all of this being said, is 2023 having the “hottest July on record” really something we should worry about? Remember that climate is the study of weather or effects over the course of many years, not one month or a season. When a couple of days in the winter get to spring-like temperatures, I often hear people say, “see, we are experiencing the effects of climate change,” when in reality, a day or two or three means virtually nothing when observing overall climate. Is this all hysteria, or is climate change an “existential threat,” as President Joe Biden and the corporate media have suggested? Well, if we rely on climate change models to make predictions of what is happening and will happen, hopefully we will get more accurate results than what our local meteorologists predict with the weather or what the COVID-19 scientists predicted with the false doomsday prophecies during the pandemic.
If we rely solely on computer models to enact public policy, we are missing out on finding real solutions to our problems and sacrificing people’s freedoms for the sake of feeling good about ourselves. Propaganda benefits the elites of our society, but the average person will have higher costs from the “cleaner” solutions and increased regulations on businesses. We may even see increasing restrictions on travel in the upcoming years, as we need to reduce the number of cars and airplanes, except for private jets and limousines for the politicians and corporate leaders. The concept of fifteen-minute cities, where residents will be able to remain in their neighborhoods and walk everywhere to thrive, may also have a darker side. In fact, the City of Oxford in England may fine people for leaving their neighborhoods (under the guise of easing traffic congestion and reducing environmental impacts), forcing people to have to get permission from the government to visit friends and family or go on vacation.
Is controlling the citizens the actual aim behind the climate change hysteria? It was clear from the COVID-19 pandemic that politicians enjoyed locking us down and forcing us to mask and get vaccinated, so is climate change any different? Politicians can control what products we consume by implementing regulations that ban cheaper products demanded by the market and replacing them with expensive and unwanted but green goods. Manipulating the market (not free market at all) and restricting our travel may not be the only plans on the horizon. If we allow the fearmongering headlines to cause us to reach a state of hopelessness in saving the planet, we will succumb to whatever agendas are being pushed, whether this is done with good intentions or not. The choice is ours: will we play the tyrants’ game of fear, or will we stand up and take control of our own lives and destinies?
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
Thanks for reading Craig’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.