People keep asking..

The latest (May 2014) RSS satellite data shows the trend line for global temperatures remaining flat for the last 17 years and 9 months. In fairness, data prior to 1979 depicts evidence of ‘global warming’ but the length of the pause in that trend casts models heavily publicised over the last decade by climate change activist scientists and their fear mongering politician lackeys in a very negative light (ie they were very, very wrong).

Even if we are to experience dramatic climate change, this wouldn’t be new. Long before humans, the earth’s climate was tumultuous. Long after we’re gone (perhaps why we’ll be gone), it will also be. A history lesson:

Trees ingest sunlight and carbon dioxide, grow, and give off oxygen as a waste product. Thus, they are considered our greatest weapon ‘against’ greenhouse gasses – they keep the CO2 we, our economies and our landscape (volcanos alone account for 2% of yearly CO2 emissions) output in check. However, when they die, this process reverses – in decaying, they release CO2. 300 million years ago, in the Permian period, Earth was covered in trees, as they evolved before their predators (termites etc) did. As they died, they sunk into the mud; the bacteria to consume them had also not yet evolved. Eventually hundreds of billions of trees were buried before they could decay, their lifetime of injested carbon dioxide intact.

Eventually, volcanic eruptions spewed that trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere, rapidly warming the climate, while at the same time heating the coal the dead trees had, over eons, become. Through a chain reaction only mother nature could cococt, this baked coal released sulfur and methane into the atmosphere. Sulfuric acid blocked out sunlight. Surface temperatures spiralled below freezing. As the eruptions calmed, the acid fell back to the earth, but carbon dioxide remained, heating the earth once again. In response, methane rich ice on the then frozen sea floor began to melt, making its way to the surface and then atmosphere. Compared to CO2, methane is even ‘worse’ a greenhouse gas as it more efficiently traps heat whilst simultaneously destroying the ozone. Adding insult to injury, the oceans became oxygen starved, killing most sea life, with notable exceptions like a bacteria that produced (poisonous) hydrogen sulfide gas. Accordingly, 90% of all life on Earth was wiped out by these catalysmic events. We are only alive today because small rodents which we descend from were – miraculously – able to survive. Back to the present…

The fastest ‘global warming’ rate observed was in the 1600’s (prior to the industrial revolution). More than 90% of the lime-lit models used to scare everyday people in the 1990’s are between two and four times higher (aka wrong) than what we currently measure (aka reality).

Since 01/01/2001, the warming trend on a mean of five datasets is nil – none – no warming. This is why ‘global warming’ has been rebranded ‘climate change’, and we now point to extreme weather as evidence of our dire, self inflicted future. The narrative of fear must continue, as it so perfectly fits the relentless onslaught of big government (and with it, the erosion of liberty).

A human accellerated greenhouse effect very likely does lead to unimaginably challenging outcomes for our offspring’s offspring; our global ecosystem is delicate and, on an Earth-time-scale, violent when offended. This is only made worse by it’s compounding nature (ice reflects sunlight/water absorbs it, melting permafrost releases masses of CO2 etc etc). So, who’s to blame for keeping us on this trajectory toward extinction?

Empirically, China, USA, India, Russia and Japan are most polluting our air with invisible, deadly (to your children’s children, also polar bears right now.. sadface~) CO2. Only one of those countries is pretending to actively campaign for a ‘greener’ future. Problem is they’re also one of the worst offenders and even if they weren’t, are no longer Team America: World Police and are instead $US17 trillion dollars in debt thanks to social(ist) policy and prior foreign meddling. Welcome to global irrelivancy (well, except for your horrific, degenerate impact on western culture and continuing top tier CO2 emissions, awesome legacy, thanks again).

Maybe i’m cherry picking biased data. Let’s instead be economic. Oh look, after obvious oil rich, zero fucks given Middle Eastern countries we have two foundational moral pillars of the democratic transhumanist equality crusading polar bear hugging cultists, aka, you guessed it, AU and the US.

As a risk mitigation strategy alone, it’s in our collective best interest to curb such emissions. Problem is, ‘we’ (the West):

  • keep getting the ♥science♥ wrong
  • are pot calling kettle black on a per capita basis and use this fossil fueled wealth to…
  • invest far more in social progress (egalitarianism, LGBTF, universal health care despite aging population etc) than we do literally saving the world and thus..
  • are not feasibly able (fiscally or geopolitically) to exercise our will on RUS or, far more importantly, CHN
![The XKCD above is 'scary' and 'dramatic' and thought provoking. Thing is, the +4.5 degree increase which underpins the whole idea is based on a model which with each passing year proves itself more inaccurate.]

The XKCD above is ‘scary’ and ‘dramatic’ and thought provoking. Thing is, the +4.5 degree increase which underpins the whole idea is based on a model whichwith each passing yearproves itself more inaccurate.

Data (especially that which is less-than-accurate) should not be used to elicit or emphasise emotion. Emotion is illogical, erronous; to excuse emotional decision making as “part of being human” is trite. Celebrating human weakness is like celebrating the byproduct of those fossil fuels that made modern civilization possible; rediculous. That such blatant popular manipulation occurs under the banner of ‘for the greater good’ only further underlines our need for skepticism – an arguement should have merit without the added fervor of ‘morality’ – very oft an indication the campaigner has an agenda.

A thought experiment. If China flexes their eugenic muscle to invent a machine that adeptly sucks our prior/current/future greenhouse-inducing emissions from the atmosphere, but can be powered only by bear bile and maintained only by children, would you consent to your nation’s contribution to the “carbon tax” (based on CO2 per capita, providing to the ‘machine’ both child labour and caged bears)? If not, you don’t really care about climate change as evangelically as your driving a Prius and voting left implies. Instead, you crave spiritual signifigance, cause, purpose.. or just still somehow harbour infantile delusions of ‘having it all’.

It’s high time leftist eco warrior short bus passengers start conceding their whole idealogy is heavily predicated on ‘want cake, eat too’ because #hashtagdejour. They are democratic pawns, no different to the bears they patronise, their votes harvested by a populist elite that lust what all (wo)men do – power. If their tree huggery was real, and elected true representatives of that movement, electric cars would be cheaper than fossil fuel burning alternatives by way of tax credits and there would be sanctions on the environmentally destructive, both domestic and foreign. If English is your mother tongue, there is likely neither where you live, because, as above, your country is instead subsidising ‘social cohesion’ (welfare/faux-equality) and excessively taxing those who succeed most in their capitalistic endeavours – those that enable your life to be so innately fortuitous, you have time to crusade for #nobodyofimportancecares. This will end well.

Let’s take the politics and the religious-like fevour out of environmentalism. Yes, your life is boring and meaningless. No, campaigning for the poor polar bears who are losing their icy homeland (sadface~ again) is not an authentic salve to your existential plight.