Climate Change:
An Anti-Life Social Movement Cleverly Disguised as a Life-Promoting Social Movement

Last Update: 11 March, 2024

What this Issue is about:

Humanity's care of Earth especially it's ability to support life.

Relaed Issues:

The Culture of Death.

What the problem is:

This issue is about twisting a noble desire to take care of the planet into something which works against humanity and even the planet also.

Overview Resources:

A Common Ground on this Topic:

  1. Definitely all life on Earth, including ourselves, depends on the life-supporting ability of the Planet.

  2. Definitely there is something strange happening with the climate.

  3. Definitely the life-supporting ability of the environment has been harmed by reckless human activities and we should strive to improve our doings.

Official Narrative

The 'Climate Change' narrative seems to include the following claims:

  • that the Environment (the Earth's ability to support life) is being destroyed

  • that the Environmental destruction is proven by data which the average person cannot observe interpreted by experts (much like with the COVID-19 crisis).

  • that carbon and nitrogen are the primary mechanism of the damage (not, for example, pollution with trash or heavy metals)

  • that human (typically interpreted as civilian) activities are the only cause of environmental damage

  • that virtually all scientists agree on these alarming claims: the problem as elements of life (carbon, nitrogen) and the cause as humans

  • that it is of the utmost urgency to stop the Environmental destruction before it becomes catastrophic for all life on Earth.

  • that world scientists have somehow come up with and agreed on a specific 1.5 °C rise of global temperature (compared to preindustrial times) which the planet must not exceed or else the changes (we are lead to believe) are irrevisible cataclysm. In other words, 1.5 °C is life and 1.6 °C is death, by this narrative.

  • that the primary change needed is to restrict human (interpreted as civilian) activities

  • the kind of restrictions on the chopping block are considered normal life activities, including: freedom to travel by plane, not being restricted in distance of travel, and choice of fuel and food.

  • that there isn't enough time left for change to happen voluntarily by education, but that they must be forced by Government and the Establishment

  • that there isn't even enough time for leaders to discuss but better there is only one leader to act rather than discuss

  • that the severity and urgency supercede human rights (this kind of thinking was used to justify COVID-19 lockdowns also).

In other words, the 'Climate Change' narrative is an urgent call to severely restrict human rights, even into a worldwide dictatorship, based on panic over abstract climate data and its arbitrary interpretation, rather than visible and readily measurable climate harm such as pollution.

Examples of this kind of narrative:

Public Promotion of 'Climate Change' Narrative and Related Fear

  1. Public Displays: As if to make sure that the Climate Change narratives and its predictions of doom inspire fear and anxiety, public countdown clocks have been erected which are difficult not to notice at least subliminally.

  2. The Pope: example article 12 Jan, 2024 Pope names ‘most dangerous’ sin

  3. King Charles: example article May 2, 2023 This is why Charles III will be known as the 1st climate king, experts say

  4. The United Nations: example articles November 1, 2021 COP26 report card: How the world's largest emitters are faring on climate goals and 5 December 2023 UN cites ‘alarming surge’ in climate change over the past decade as COP28 pushes for global emissions cuts

  5. Leaders of the world's most prominent nations example article G7 public engagement paper - Working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy

  6. Courts Worldwide example article How Canadian courts are taking on climate change

  7. Local Governments example article , January 4, 2024: Yukon introduces new climate change goals

  8. Mainstream News Media example article 11 January 2024: TIME and Outrider Announce New Fellowship Program to Support Reporting on Climate Change and the Intersection of Politics, Policy and Society

  9. Many Large Corporations example article

  10. Celebrities example article 5 May 2022: 10 Celebrities Leading the Fight Against Climate Change

Things (Real or Not) Blamed on Climate Change

  1. Rising Temperatures. This is the central theme. Example article: 19 Apr 2021: World on the verge of climate ‘abyss’, as temperature rise continues: UN chief

  2. Polar ice melting Jun 06, 2023 New research shows Arctic could see ice-free summers by 2030

  3. Sea levels rising

  4. Unusual weather of literally any kind

  5. Plane takeoff difficulty: Article July 22, 2023: Why high temperatures can make planes too heavy to take off

  6. Warping the Earth September 21, 2021: Melting of polar ice shifting Earth itself, not just sea levels

  7. Floods

  8. Wildfires

  9. Many more things: November 8, 2021 article: The 10 Weirdest Ways Climate Change Is Screwing With Our World

Environmental Problems which the 'Climate Change' Narrative Generally Ignores:

  1. Trash pollution (land and sea) is generally ignored.

  2. Mercury and Heavy metals pollution (land and sea) is generally ignored.

  3. Fluoride (from fluoridation of our drinking water eventually running into lakes and seas) pollution is generally ignored.

  4. Aerosol spraying of the atmosphere, such as in weather modification programs, is generally ignored.

  5. Industrial chemical wastes of all kinds (except carbon dioxide) are generally generally ignored.

  6. Nuclear waste is generally ignored.

  7. Pharmaceutical pollution of natural bodies of water, as a result of being urinated from people, is ignored, even when it is shown to be harming wildlife.

  8. Microplastic pollution is generally ignored.

  9. Genetic pollution (such as from GMO crops growing in the wild) is ignored.

  10. Flaws in Government handling of waste are ignored. Blame is kept focused on the Public. For example, even some major developed cities dump raw sewage into seas or lakes (even the same one they draw their drinking water from) if it rains heavily, because their drain system doesn't separate sewage and rainwater, causing their wastewater treatment facilities to get overwhelmed during a storm. Somehow improving this system is not mentioned in environmental measures.

    It should never be forgotten that, regardless of the flaws of citizens, Government directly controls or at least regulates virtually all waste disposal, such that if there is a problem with waste disposal, Government mechanisms should have been the first place to look to find flaws.

    Perhaps because Government is the strongest backer of the 'climate change' movement that it doesn't criticize Government.

  11. Genetic pollution (such as from GMO crops growing in the wild) is ignored.

  12. Government and industry programs aimed at limiting food or other production to prop up prices. For example, many farmers have a quota imposed from above which they are not permitted to produce more than.

  13. Government and industry preventions and incentives to not farm aerable land at all.

Reasons to be Suspicious of the Official Narrative

  1. The data presented is usually not directly verifiable by the average person. It relies on things which the average person canot directly measure and therfore cannot challenge on the same footing. For example, if a scientists tells you that 2023 was the hottest year in 125,000 years, that's not something the average person can say, from their own data, is wrong. Inability to directly verify data ourselves forces the Public to instead trust someone else.

  2. When forced to trust someone else for your truth, the Establishment has the advantage because they award the credentials to encourage that trust.

  3. When the Public tries to decide between narratives, the Establishment again has the advantage due to not only outright control of the largest public information channels (including ability to censor coutner-narratives and give prominence and repetition to climate-change narratives), as well as most journalists and scientiests receiving their income from them (such as by employment or grants).

  4. The Narrative is based on Fear.

  5. The Narrative provides the solution along with it, and it's a solution which demands sacrifices of rights and freedoms. It doesn't let the People decide how to approach it; it doesn't demand prayer for example.

  6. The 'Climate Change' movement has no criticism for many new technologies which it just so happens that Government and industry are interested in, such as artificial intelligence (AI) or digital money.

  7. Governments are willing to force very disruptive lifestyle and/or puchasing changes for things without any clear environmental benefits. For example, forcing electric cars might seem great except when you start to consider the environmental (if not human rights) abuses in mining the related minerals, and the environmental costs to somewhere produce the electricity to charge them. It's very suspicious as to whether this is really about saving the environment.

  8. There's an unnecessary rushing to claim many natural and weather events are proof of a climate crisis.

    9. Short-term weather events tend to be explicitly blamed on 'climate change' despite the climate change narrative being based on long-term data.

    Examples of this kind of narrative are:

    Climate Change Activists have been Attempting to Piggyback the Climate Change Issure on Health Emergency Legislation

    Why would they do that?

Ways the Official Narrative is Wrong:

  1. The Urgency is Exaggerated

    2. Even within the official narrative, from the most authoratative sources, we quickly see a big disagreement on urgency, if we look at th details. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their Summary for Policymakers, section A.1., states that "Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate", ie. if we change nothing, we might stay under 1.5C until 2052, which implies that is the deadline to make a change by. Meanwhile the World Ecomonic Forum webpage, The 1.5C climate threshold: What it means and why it matters, states "To hold the planet’s long-term average temperature to below the 1.5-degree threshold, the world will have to reach net zero emissions by the year 2050", ie. so now we're supposed to make a drastic change and get it done by 2050, and 2050 is the deadline they are plannning for. Despite that, the public countdown clock triggered by King Charles is reported to give us until 2030 to make the required changes. Presumably just to stoke the anxiety even more, if you take the date of that clock launch, and add the time it says we have left, you see it doesn't even count down to 2030 but 22 July 2029, as does this prominent climate clock online (at least as of this writing: they'll probably adjust it eventually)..

  2. The Crisis is Qualitatively Exaggerated

    3. The Climate Crisis story, whether global cooling, global warming, or more recently climate change, is based on the claim that the environment is heading towards human extinction because of human activities and soon. Examples:

    The thing is, not only are officials notorious at leading the Public to false crises (such as the world running out of oil by 2011, or exaggerated dangers of COVID-19), but many climate scares are failing to materialize:

  3. Inconsistency of the Climate Narrative

    4. In the 70s the threat was seen as global cooling (mostly by accumulation of suspended particulates in the upper atmosphere), then it became global warming (mostly by greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere), and recently it is simply called 'climate change'.

  4. False Claims of Scientific Consensus

    5. The 'climate change' narrative, in terms of it's alleged cause (humans) and/or alleged cure (restriciton of human activities), despite its claims of almost unanymous agreement among scientists, it is actually far from being in a consensus among scientsits.

  5. Usually ignoring pollution or other more obvious environmental harms are to blame.

    6. The Official Narrative keeps focus on fear of and attacking things life needs, like carbon dioxide and nitrogen, while ignoring the obvious harms of pollution, including::

    1. Sewage in water. Not only animals but we need to drink from that. Even letting it decompose on the ground with worms would have been far better.

    2. Mercury and other heavy metal pollution

    3. PFAS, the so-called 'forever chemicals'

    4. Plastics (macro and micro)

    5. Chemtrails. Check out Geoengineering Watch.

    6. Nuclear waste

  6. No Acknowledgement that Government Weather-Altering Programs are An Alternate Cause of Climate Change

    7. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in a still-available 2017 article, over 50 countries have weather modification programs, and their official publication entitled, WMO Statement on Weather Modification in 2015, says the same. It's an admitted fact that governments are playing God with the weather. Then they try to tell you the strange weather is due to 'climate change'. Other articles include:

  7. No sense that the molecules we're lead to make war on are some of the most essential molecules for life

    8. Biological life as we know it depends on carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen much more than any other atoms in the universe. In fact, organic chemistry is defined as the chemistry of carbon and carbon compounds: there is no life without it.

    Carbon is not very abundant in the Earth compared to many other elements. Considering that and the fact that carbon is the most important atom building life as we know it, life on Earth needs the supply of carbon to be augmented not reduced. Any attempt to take carbon permanently out of Earth's life cycles (such as by burying trees for this purpose) really is an attack on all life!

    Where the 'climate change' narrative targets carbon and nitrogen, to keep them out of the enviornment, that is an attack on all life. Example articles include:

    Meanwhile, there is much chemical polution due to human activities, such as mercury (the most toxic atom we know of) poisoning of natural bodies of water as a by-product of mining operations.

  8. Exemption of the Military from Climate Goals pushed on Everyone Else

    9. This is despite Government performing or at least regulating all waste management.

    The Military is especially notorious for pollution, and reckless even nuclear weapons tests outdoors even at high altitudes, but are not brought into blame. In fact the Armed Forces are generally exempt from environmental protection targets. Once you realize that Climate Activists accept the Military to make wide areas radioactive with weapons tests, or use of depleted uranium munitions, but while attacking your use of a gasoline car, right to travel, or even breathing, you begin to realize that this whole thing is an attack on the general Public. Articles:

  9. No acknowledgement that humans can be a benefit to the environment

    10. The thinking is that huamns are and can only be a threat to the environment.

    This invariably leads 'climate' initiatives to be based on restricting human population or activities to ostensibly mitigate the harm which humans allegedly are.

  10. A belief that in order to save humanity we must restrict humanity.

    11. The harms demanded are things like: reduction of food supply, severe restriction on individual freedoms, surrender of democracy, and depopulation.

  11. Human Breathing Portrayed as a Cause of Climate Change

    12. 13 December 2023: Now scientists say BREATHING is bad for the environment: Gases we exhale contribute to 0.1% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions

  12. No acknowledgement that 'climate' interventions can cause more harm than good.

    13. The 'climate change' narrative seems to have worked up such a desperation to 'do something' to possibly save us from ostensibly imminent extinction that harm caused by the interventions doesn't seem to be a concern. Examples:

  13. Piggybacking of bizzare and dangerous technologies on the back of the 'climate change' narrative

    14. Presumably this is to win support for technologies which normally the public would not support. For example:

    1. Genetic Modification of Agricultural Crops and Animals as supposedly a way to combat world hunger caused by climate change. Actually we can already easily produce more than enough food if we want to, and actually restrict production to support prices, and cover our best farmland with concrete. Worse, we aren't the designers of life, so we cannot understand all the implications of our changes, but when our artificial genetic changes are released into the wild environment, there is no expectation of any feasible way to remove them.

    2. Vaccination rather than first ensuring basics like: clean air, clean water, proper sanitation, and adequatee nutrition. Example 29 Nov 2023: Climate and health strategies must take vaccination into account

  14. Depopulation by any means increasingly portrayed as a necessary way to save the planet from climate change

  15. Ignoring Human Survival Instinct in Highly Populated Countries

    16. Pollution is a global problem largely decided by the most populace countries, which tend to be the poorest countries also. This means that:

    1. What peoples of less populated countries do makes little difference to the end result. There's no point drastically restricting the lifestyle of people in less populated countries alone because it will cause significant unnecessary hardship with no significant improvement in the global situation.

    2. Peoples of poorer countries can't be expected to care about pollution and emissions before they have the necessities of life. You can't expect someone who can't find enough food or doesn't have clean water to be motivated to further restrict their lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint. Put another way, someone who is in danger of starvation themselves can't be expected to sacrifice to protect polar bears from starvation.

    A revealing video on this is: The Best Video On Climate Change That You Will Ever See

  16. Mainstream Media Downplay of any good climate news

  17. The dominant polluter is actually Government, not individuals

    18. Government is the dominant regulator of all environmental impacts of human beings, including regulation of all military, industry, and public waste disposal, and directly manages a tremendous amount of land besides. If there is a fault in the way humans manage the Environment, it probably lies there, yet Government is quick to blame and restrict individuals instead. For example, whichever Government was behind blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines didn't seem to mind releasing tremendous amounts of methane (natural gas) into the atmosphere, despite it being considered 80 times more dangerous for global warming than carbon dioxide, all the while presumably telling its own people (as most governmetns do now) to reduce their carbon emissions to protect the environment. As another example, Government typically prohibits individuals from 'dumping' any amount of even soapy water on their own land, but they often dump raw sewage into lakes, whenever it rains heavy and their sewage system gets overwhelmed with the water, at least for those cities which haven't separated their sewage from storm water lines. Sometimes you can actually see the sewage floating down the lake, but it's accepted because it's done by Government. In the case of Toronto and Montreal, for example, that's the same lake those people are given water by the same Government to drink from. So different standards for Government and then they blame your SUV for environmental problems.

    Some related commentary:

  18. The 'Climate Change' Narrative Ignores that Arson is Another Explanation for Wildfires.

    Many wildfires are known to be human-caused, whether deliberately or accidentally. Example news items on this:

  19. The 'Climate Change' Narrative Ignores that the Earth has Systems to Rebalance Excesses of the Natural Life-Supporting Atoms (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogn) at least in their natural molecular forms.

    For example, although carbon dioxide is a toxic byproduct of animals including humans, it is a critical nutrient for plants. Any attack on carbon dioxide would therefore be an attack on both animals and plants!

  20. Climate Activsts Sometimes Exempt their Own Lifestyle

    21. Dec 10, 2022: 'Just Stop Oil' Activists Admit Using Petrol Cars, Claim They're Not Hypocrites

  21. Wrong Emotions:

    22. The Climate change narrative is fear-based, being extremely alarmist, in terms of very short time before the end of the world.

    On the Resistance side, the attitude doesn't seem purely devoted to what is most good but some of it seems to be a blind fight to resist anyone trying to change their lifestyle by force of law, as a matter of rights. In particular, there are a lot of people who will refuse any presentation which is presented in a way that offends them, such as attacking their existing lifestyle or beliefs, even when new ideas can't really help doing that. Rights are important but defense of rights shouldn't be permitted to blind us from considering the worthiness of ideas for the greater good. For example, although it's wrong to attack carbon and therefore all carbon-based life, there is merit to improving the way we dispose of trash and heavy metals.

Why the Methods Used to Combat 'Climtate Change' are Wrong:

In many ways, the choice of method indicates the intent behind the narrative, and it is not for the benefit of life and freedom. In particular:

  1. Calls for Dictatorial 'Emergency' Government Measures Under a Worldwide Supervisor to Save Us and Quickly

    2. The argument behind this is that the situation is supposedly so extreemely urgent and dangerous that there just isn't time to gradually convince everyone to action by discussion: that people need to be forced. The trend is towards global centralization of power to international organizations of unelected elites, ostensibly to save us.

    Normally this kind of centralization would be recognizd as a bad thing, but when top officials keep repeating that you need to allow this to save the Earth, humanity, and every living thing, and that there is no time to wait, that's a lot of pressure for you to agree that it's necesary.

    Yet even if it were all true, can we expect those increased Government powers to ever be given back to the People? Probably not. In other words, whether the 'climate change' narrative is true or not, it's definitely a way to institute a kind of worldwide tyranny. If it were honest, it should admit that.

  2. Pursuing bizarre and dangerous tamperings with nature

    1. Blotting out the sun: example article August 14, 2019: Bill Gates backs plan to tackle climate change by blocking out the sun

    2. Cutting down trees and then burying them so that their carbon isn't available for other life forms to use.

    3. Eating bugs instead of meat or fish

    4. Weather modifciation

    5. Otherwise sequestering carbon away from where the biosphere can use it: example article 3 September, 2023: Carbon capture storage systems are a severe danger to communities and a veiled government-incentivized land grab

    6. Genetically modified crops regardless of the genetic pollution and if they actually produce the bounty they promise. Many farmers who invested in this have already committed suicide over the results.

    7. Reduction of medical services: article November 12, 2023Wicked, Wicked Doctors put “climate change” above patients’ interests

    8. Lunacy: Prince Charles backs proposal to make “burping cows” wear masks to “fight climate change”

  3. Recklessness to implement changes in vital civilian support systems with no safety net if they go wrong:

    4. This is known as a 'top-down' reformation, ie. where it's imagined, decided, and directed by Government, rather than organically by the People.

    Being based only on academic theories, and implemented quickly, the results of such interventions tend to be disastrous. Real-world dymanics are very complex, tend to miss something in practice. Theories only tend to work as applied in the real world when the system is predictable, based on known forces, and supported by much experimentation. For example, a computer circuit is complex, has no random elements, and, after being tested in an electroics lab, can be applied in the real world with a reasonable expectation of reliabiltiy (although even then there are problems: such as we see with cell phone batteries burning). It is so dangerous that it is tantamount to genocide to implement sudden changes to something like the real-world food supply system, especially when not supported by experiment, where: there are many unpredictable decision-makers, there are many people whose lives depend on this, and there is no safety net if it doesn't go well. Nevertheless, sudden top-down tampering with the food supply has been done in history, with disastrous results, for for example, with:

    1. Mao Tse Tung's 'Great Leap Forward', which suddenly and drastically changed farming in China, to fatal starvation of millions of people, and would have been worse if the West hadn't bailed them out.

    2. Stalin's crop experiments, based on other theories, which also resulted in famine there

    3. Sri Lankan Government's sudden imposition of organic farming, being the right thing but too fast, causing famine and riots there in 2022.

    If it wasn't for this excuse, it would be recognized as tyranny. Because of this excuse the Public seems to consider it necessary.

    Example articles:

  4. 'Climate' Initatives which are Anti-Human

    These proposals flow naturally from the thinking that humans are inherently bad for the Earth.

    1. Generally Anti-human solutions

      2. Since the propaganda is that humans are only a curse to the environment, can never be better, are the only cause of climate change, and the planet is better off without us, it invariably leads to solutions which are anti-human: anything from restrictions of freedoms to depopulation, including:

    2. Social Lockdowns Ostensibly for Protecting the Climate

    3. Food Production Restrictions

      4. 'Climate Change' is being used as an excuse to confiscate farmland from farmers, and otherwise attack and pervert our food chain. This is an attack on all three of: right to pursue your profession, property rights, and attack on the food chain, the last one being the focus of this article. Examples:

    4. Deliberate Dismantling of Existing Non-Electrical Energy Infrastructure

      5. The environmental movement has become a sucicide cult, failing to recognize that although current energy infrastructure is not ideal, for the protection of human life it must not be cancelled until better energy infrastructure is proven and implemented to handle the same capacity of need. Unfortunately, the climate change movement wants to cancel hydrocarbon energy systems now regardless of whether we have ready replacements or not. Example articles:

      A motive behind this attack on hydrocarbons seems to be the centralization of energy. Electricity systems are the one form of energy not attacked, and the one form of energy into which other forms of energy can readily be converted. It may be that the Government is attempting to funnel all forms of energy into electricity via the public power grid, from which point they can easily control the energy access of each person.

    5. Otherwise Attacking our own infrastructure in the name of Climate Change

    6. Travel Restrictions starting with International Travel

    7. Climate Terrorism against Private Property and Individual Freedoms

      8. Climate activism doesn't hesitate to destroy private property to bring attention to their issue. Examples:

      Rarely do these stunts address the great environmental destroyers, such as geoengineering or municipal pollution, but rather consumer choices.

      The reason the movement lacks moral boundaries to its activism, which most other activists have, is presumably because it doesn't have a moral foundation, not being based on truth.

    8. Otherwise Restricting Human Freedoms

  5. 'Climate' Initiatives which are Anti-Life:

    6. As if anti-human measueres weren't bad enough.

    1. A war on Carbon Dioxide and All Carbon

      2. All life as we know it is based on carbon more than any other atom; in fact the chemistry of carbon is what defines organic chemistry. Any attack on carbon is therefore an attack on alllife as we know it.

      Carbon dioxide, although a waste product of animals, is approximately as vital to plants as oxygen is to us: they can't perform photosynthesis without it. Any attack on carbon dioxide is an attack on all plant life and, indirectly, all other life which depends on plant life (like humans).

      Despite these facts, on promotion of an irrational fear of carbon, a new financial system has been devised to arbitrarily describe each person's purchases in terms of the 'carbon emissions' they supposedly generate. From there, the person can be cut off from their activities solely on the basis of too much emissions, or they can pay to buy permission to pollute in the form of 'carbon credits'.

      It should have been obvious that this deception has nothing to do with helping life but is all about attacking life while increasing surveillance and control of humanity.

      Examples:

    2. Direct tampering with the Earth, ie. Geoengineering, as a solution to 'climate change'

      3. This is an extremely dangerous playing of God with no safety net if things go wrong, and it doesn't help that we don't understand what we're doing with this. Nevertheless, after portraying human activity as a great threat to the planet, the narrative proposes this even more radical human interventions to solve the problem. It is worse than carelessly polluting in passing of our activities. It is direct alteration (including its own form of pollution) just so scientists can feel powerful to change the weather like God. Unlike God, we didn't make the Earth, don't fully understand how it works (few even know what shape it is), and we should never tamper with it due to the extreme danger being worse than climate change. Even if they worked, plants and animals are still left to consume the tons of chemicals sprayed into the atmosphere for these projects. Not only the weather but all life is effectively being sprayed in these projects, and what is the effect of these chemicals on lungs or plants? But it's more than spraying chemicals, to include even blotting out the sun(!). Example articles include:

      Scientists admit that billions may be harmed, but claim it is worth it (for example, please see 26 November 2014 article, Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions'). This is despite the fact that it's admitted that geoengineering can make the climate situation worse (for example please see 8 January 2014 article, Geoengineering plan could have 'unintended' side effect).

    3. States of Emergency ie. Suspensions of Democracy and Human Rights

      4. Similar to the COVID crisis, once this type of environmentalism has scared enough people, Government has seized upon that fear to declare various states of emergency and insisted to implement emergency measures which attack life.

    4. Climate-based Restrictions on Personal Freedoms

      5. Just as Government used their declaration of a COVID-19 emergency to compel dramatic freedom restrictions, so they seem intent to continue restricting freedoms on the justification of a supposed climate emergency. Beyond COVID-19 restrictions, however, they seem to want to use the climate excuse to implement similar human rights restrictions, even to the point of redesigning cities to effectively be open-air prisons of a few kilometers diameter per cell. Resources:

Evidence that the Environmentalist movement has Strayed in Purpose

What started out as a good thing has changed direction while many activists seem to still think it's a good thing.

September 12, 2022: Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore Says Climate Change Based On False Narratives

Motive

Why blame the Wrong Cause for Environmental Destruction?

  1. Money: Although not their opening line, climate change activism eventually makes is way around to demanding money, and a lot of it, to ostensibly save us.

  2. Knowledge (by Surveillence): On excuse of climate change, many programs are being rolled out to increase Establishment surveillance of the Public, such as credit card companies tracking purchases in terms of carbon implications.

  3. Control: The climate change narrative is adamant to demand more powers for Government, less fredoms for humantiy, and to implement them with urgency. Methods include: legislation, funding, and technologies, the implications of which are not all obvious now. One of the larger changes is fencing people into '15 minute cities': a kind of self-imprisonment under the guise of helping the Planet. Another example is that SMART thermostats can block homeowners from changing their heating or cooling outside of Government-dictated ranges, computerized electric cars can report your speed to Government or be remotedly shut down (this seems the reason Government is so interested in forcing them despite dubious environmental benefits).

  4. Depopulation: The more the Public is enticed to see humans as the problem the more we tend to support depopulation initiatvies.

  5. Lucifarianism: The climate chagne narrative can be used to hate humanity.

OPINION: What this issue is really all about:

This issue is about using 'science', fear, and urgency to win support for radical Government remodelling of society, towards oppression of humanity in the name of saving it.

PROPOSAL: A Better Attitude

  1. Humans can benefit the Earth and all life within it by our ingenuity. In most problems on Earth, humanity already has the means to fix it, but the will is lacking. A quick example is that some countries today, with many starving people, are net food exporters: they have the food but they don't want to give it to people who won't pay for it. That's not a food production problem.

  2. The Earth is ours to care but not ours to directly tamper with.

  3. We should not directly tamper with the Earth's natural systems. Not only is this traditionally the realm of God, and we don't understand enough about how it works, but we don't have mechanisms to hold people responsible for weather patterns gone wrong by geoengineering.

  4. Legal mechanisms must be put in place to hold geoengineers responsible for all fallout from their work. Forcing rain in one place denies it from another place, and severe weather accidents arising from geoengineering cause serious civilian damage. The impunity of geoengineering must be ended.

  5. We should start with the issues which are obvious burdens on the environment (eg. trash pollution or mercury pollution of natural bodies of water) before launching into bizarre abstract theories based on data the average person cannot access.

  6. We should be using our best technologies for life-supporting systems (rather than weaponry). For example:

OPINION: What the Best Solution Is:

How we were lead away from the obvious solutions to bizarre theories is stunning. Everyone with a basic science education should know what needs to be done:

  1. Clean up the pollution we've been dumping into the environment (trash, heavy metals, sewage, pharmaceuticals, etc).

  2. Keep using carbon fuels. We need to augment the supply of carbon into Earth's life cycles to fuel the growth of more lie.

  3. Plant trees: lots of trees. It helps the gaseous cleaning of the air as well as encourages rainfall by much-increased evaporation. Food-producing trees should be preferred.

  4. Stop geoengineering includling artificial weather modification: it is a direct threat to natural weather.

  5. Remove farming production quotas. If there's not enough food then stop limiting production.

  6. Build cities off of the best farmland, which must be preserved for crops (or wildlife).

  7. Irrigate the Sahara desert. Yes, it would be expensive, but it is shocking just how unlimited the Government willingness to spend is under the Climate Change narrative, such as billions of dollars to pay for farmland confiscations in Denmark.

  8. Tell homeowners to grow food (instead of grass). Right now it's actually illegal to grow food on your front lawn in many cities. There is really no concept of individuals growing their own food under the 'Climate Change' programs.

  9. Create a program to help people get jobs closer to home, or switch with roles with other people for less transit distance

  10. Reduce packaging on store-bought items

  11. Upgrade waste disposal systems to absolutely minimize the waste we put into the environment to our technological limit. Examples include trash incineration (before burying) and sewage water treatment to fully break down drugs and remove excess heavy metals from the water before releasing into the wild.

  12. Mine incinerated trash for metals and other value.

  13. Make it easier for individuals to dispose of household hazardous waste. As already stated, this would cost some money but Government has shown a vitually unlimited willingness to spend or forfeit (taxes) money on other 'climate change' programs. If Government really cared about the planet, they would implement, for example, some safe way to dispose of at least the very common household hazardous waste, such as fluorescent bulbs and batteries, at curbside in a regular bin and pickup.

  14. Use only biodegradable medical personal protective equipment. This is important if you're forcing everyone to use them.

  15. Severely persecute deliberate arson of forests rather than pretend it's all 'climate change'.

People Pushing Back

Nov 8, 2022: ‘To hell with that!’: Saskatchewan premier slams Trudeau’s radical climate agenda

Back to Homepage

Flag Counter