AGW is a political matter and not a science matter

“The primary agenda behind AGW is world government, resource control, and population reduction.”
– Tom O
___________

AGW is a political matter and not a science matter

Tom O

When you have no “evidence” beyond what is spewed by computer programs and the only “evidence” that can be seen by science investigation concludes the opposite, you cannot, I repeat, you cannot debate. You can not, I repeat, cannot permit a different point of view to be shown. You cannot, I repeat, cannot acknowledge anything that is contrary to your programs.

If your agenda REQUIRES that your evidence is to be accepted, you have no choice but to pretend nothing else exists. Science will not, I repeat, will not negate AGW as it is strictly a political operation, and only an opposing POLITICAL operation can defeat it.

The primary agenda behind AGW is world government, resource control, and population reduction. Transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy is a byproduct, if you will, but it is not the driver, just like CO2 is not the driver of the climate. What is happening has no basis in science, thus “the science is set,” according to their needs.

Recognizing this as a political matter and not a science matter will help us find a way to reach those other people in the population that have yet to recognize that this has nothing to do with climate or Mother Earth, but it does have everything to do with their future standard of living.


14 thoughts on “AGW is a political matter and not a science matter”

  1. I’m 65 and I have no doubt winters are warmer than the 1970’s.

    I do not dispute there has been some warming over the last 40 + years.

    I believe minimum temperatures are higher where I live but this could be due to several things including :-

    1. The series of solar maximum cycles of the late 20th century; and,
    2. Increased urbanisation.

    I do not believe it is due to ~616 grams of CO2 in every tonne of air !

    But time will tell.

    • Well Rosco I am 74 and live in the Wellington region of NZ and have done so for almost 50 years. I cannot tell of any discernible difference in weather with one exception. We used to get mighty storms on a regular basis until about the mid to late eighties when they just disappeared (see the sinking of the Wahini to get the picture of the ferocity, try 148 kts max for example). Other than that things look and feel just about the same in every respect.

  2. With Green Socialism its standard bearer for globalisation.
    However, socialism has never been democratic, other than the show of hands prompted by the local leaders, bully boys in the work place.
    The evolution of Socialism is about the transfer of power to ever smaller numbers of people, until it turn into a personality cult of the Leader supported by a Politburo of likeminded thugs.
    Historical examples, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot all, right or left socialists, all leader cults, and their downfall ends in tears for the countries which put them in power.
    Whichever, excreta head rises to the top of the World Government it will be exactly the same, only armed with Nuclear Weapons and not afraid to use them, and lasts for his life time.

  3. Thanks for taking up the real issue. The issue needed to address is the destructive power of the illegitimate tyrrany that grasps the western world. Do you have any ideas to.defeat these malicious states. Please present them.
    Thank you

  4. its a catch 22 scenario
    you can point out the not so hidden agenda
    but the average Joe cares little about global politics and pretty much ignores local until the media campaigns for lections start up
    trying to raise the issue cops not only denier slurs but then added bonus of conspiracy theorist
    the agitprop EU and USSA campaigns have been very effective over the years, hence the sheer blind obedience to whatever talking head zombie on msm media says being taken as “gospel”
    why would that nice….whomever lie?
    think operah as one classic
    err
    a paycheck for starters;-)
    ignorance for another

    • Has it occurred to you that being a “denier” or being seen as one is NOT a negative thing at all? I am not and never have been a denier of climate change, but I am a disbeliever in AGW. Actually, I am proudly a disbeliever, and if someone calls me a denier, I would consider that a complement.

      As for being a conspiracy theorist, when it is based in observable reality, so what? I have no problem being referred to as a conspiracy theorist by a delusional and ill informed individual. I can proudly say I have thick skin. I was raised by the old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” We all have to grow a few more layers of skin and stop letting “politically correct” ruin our lives and wreck our world.

      As for how do we make a difference? try to find one person whose mind you can change on the subject – one that is open to the truth. If everyone did that, the public support would shrink so fast that it would fade as an issue. Trouble is, we spend most of our time trying to affect thousands through posts or comments, but we don’t invest enough time “one on one.” This comment, for instance, might affect no one’s opinion because it is being read almost exclusively by people that gave up the Kool-aid a long time ago. But if I can talk “sense” to someone that is a believer of the faith, AND change their mind, I have done something.

  5. Tom O said it perfectly. Global Warming is a religion, and if you doubt any tenet then you are a despised heretic.

    Carbon Dioxide is not doing a damn thing to the thermodynamics of the planet, it is a trace gas and humans are only adding 1%. If you calculate it all out to three decimal places, anthropocentric CO2 is 0.117%, which rounded to the nearest integer is ZERO.

    From that insignificant amount humans are being TAXED by the MYTH of ZERO. French slaves are paying $7.50 a gallon for fuel, in other Europeon slave colonies they pay up to $12 for a gallon of unleaded gasoline.

    Yes, we should revolt, and hang them all. String Macron up on the Eiffel Tower and let the buzzards eat his little greedy banker eyeballs out.

  6. After reading Dr. Spencer’s beautiful takedown of ‘Strawman’ Chuck Todd’s ridiculous Meet-the-Press nonsense I was feeling pretty good. Then I read today’s installment of Real Clear Science. Eric Siegel wrote a column on MMGW that was so one-sided I couldn’t believe it. He used the blanket analogy to describe the GHE, but didn’t mention its logarithmic, ever decreasing, effect and he never mentioned the greening of the earth, that even NASA has acknowledged. The column was a classic case of dissembling. In another article, the usually spot-on Ross Pomeroy simply accepted MMGW as gospel.

    What is going on? Is their water being ‘treated’? Were their children kidnapped? Are our UN masters getting that desperate?

    A final not: I am lucky to have a large circle of intelligent friends, however their lack of understanding of science and the scientific method astounds me. They nearly all believe that science works by proof and that the political notion called consensus is applicable to science. It is usually easy enough to disabuse them of the notion that that the scientific method works by proof, but they cannot seem to get their heads around the fact that consensus (or authority) is irrelevant.

    • Thank you Jon Salmi.
      Yes, your question about the motives and thought processes of so many journalists and other commentators is an extremely important one, since these people are responsible for disseminating the notion that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is a legitimate proposal.
      In fact, my belief is that the CAGW deception would not have been possible at all without the collaboration of the media.

      And what amazes me is that some 90% of journalists accept CAGW with no apparent hint of the desire for truth that once drove what they used to call ‘investigative journalism’. We no longer see ‘crusading newspapers’ uncovering falsehoods and marshalling public opinion against corruption such as the Global Warming deceit.
      The research data are there for all to see, and even superficial probing would soon show any competent journalist that CAGW is just an insubstantial house of cards. But the probing never happens.
      Why?

      I think cowardice explains a lot of it. Just as the German people allowed Nazism to flourish because to oppose it meant almost certain death, today’s journalists allow CAGW to flourish because to oppose it publicly means almost certain ‘career death’.
      But the lack of any more than a tiny handful of honest media workers is quite puzzling. Why aren’t the CEOs of CNN and the BBC standing against the lies?
      Maybe there is something in the water or maybe their children are being held hostage!

      I write brief essays to as many of my friends and family as I can get away with, containing nothing but climate facts which refute the CAGW meme.
      I have to do it gently because most people I know are also taken in by the propaganda and imagine people like me are either slightly insane or “in the pay of Big Oil”.
      I’ve also recently joined ‘The Saltbush Club’ here in Australia – a grass roots political group opposed to CAGW non-science.
      I advise everyone to do likewise in their own countries if they get the chance.

  7. @ Tom O
    Thank you for your post.
    Yes, it’s just politics of the globalists and has nothing to do with science.
    Most regrettably, the Supreme Court of the U.S. was hoodwinked into judging carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” instead of a life-sustaining trace constituent of the earth’s atmosphere.
    This judgement ought to be revisited and corrected forthwith!

    • I am glad you mentioned the Supreme Court. As best I can understand, the court’s purpose was to insure that the Federal Government did not violate the Constitution when it passed legislation. It could and did act as arbiter when there were issues BETWEEN states.

      Finally, it was not granted authority over States issues, and I have no idea how it “evolved” into what it is now. Since, by its deliberations and proclamations, it affectively creates law, it is now completely unconstitutional in its actions, since creating law is the strict province of Congress.

  8. There is NO GHG, CO2 warming at all! Period.
    Yes Tom O it is a geopolitical scam designed to get world govt. control and control the resources especially oil, gas and coal.
    The first 2 NOT being fossil and are in nearly infinite supply (relative to human consumption)

Comments are closed.