Climate Change - Lack of Concrete Evidence Sinks the Alarmist Theory

103 26
The Alarmists are adamant that unless mankind can make changes to the way we live, then the world is in serious trouble.
The Alarmists cannot offer any concrete proof that what they say will occur.
Their argument is built on raw emotion.
Their supporters blindly accept the line that we are all doomed unless we make significant changes to our way of life.
And they do this without having any solid evidence.
In spite of the failed theory of the 70s when many eminent scientists were predicting that the long-term outlook for the earth's climate was for it to get colder, the Alarmist scientists and others cannot come up with any plausible data to emphatically prove their case.
They take the view that if the UN says so, then it must be right, ignoring the fact that the UN is more than happy to blame the industrialized west whilst ignoring the actions of the third-world countries - the countries who are actually driving the UN's agenda.
The major point the Alarmists fail to address There has been by general scientific consensus at least 12 major periods of climate change during the life of the earth.
All have been part of the earth's natural means of evolution.
That being the case, why should the present but short-lived period of global warming (if proven to be true) be anything other than a continuation of past events caused by Mother Nature? The UN in their reports on global warming gloss over the huge contribution by the under-developed countries - deforestation and population growth.
The Alarmists tell us that global warming has been going on for at least a century, possibly 150 years.
What they can't tell us is if this is unusual.
They just don't have any figures to suggest that nothing like this has ever happened before.
In fact the current figures of world temperature cannot be compared to the figure of 50 years ago because of the more sophisticated instruments in use today.
So how can a comparison be made with figures from the 1850s? Alarmist scientists point to the increase in carbon dioxide over the past 50 years.
What does this mean? How does it compare to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago? They just don't know.
So they cannot really say whether the earth is on the verge of a climatic crisis or whether Mother Nature is just making the sort of minor adjustment that's been made since time began.
For a better understanding of the Realists' position In the days of primitive man it was common for unusual natural phenomena to be accorded a special place in their lives.
Early man didn't know what caused rain, so they invented there own reason.
They ascribed it to the work of a Rain God.
Today man doesn't know what's been causing the earth's temperature to rise, if indeed it has been rising.
So like early man, they come up with a theory that may bear no relevance to reality.
Now into this intellectual vacuum steps the sort of person who cannot resist making this issue a personal crusade.
So up steps a politician, or should I say a failed politician.
Enter Al Gore, the champion global warming theorist.
A man who thinks he has the power to halt and then reverse the work of Mother Nature, or for the religious person, God, Allah, Jehovah etc.
A man who thinks he's on a divine mission to help people saves themselves from themselves.
A man who uses all sorts of lies, subterfuge, distortions to get his theory accepted.
A man appealing to the gullible nature of people.
A man using his political skill to deceive and distort.
In situations such as this, it's little wonder that politicians are prepared to bend the truth and twist the facts to get themselves elected.
Pressured by minority interest groups that want their unproven theories accepted as fact, politicians feel compelled to give the electorate what they want.
Instead of leading from the front, politicians are more than happy to follow what the media see as the accepted position.
Power hungry politicians are at the vanguard of this controversial theory.
And on the flimsiest of data, they could bring economic disaster on the world, because the remedial actions they propose will involve the expenditure of vast amounts of money.
Money that could be spent to fix some of the serious problems of the world.
The major problem that many have about the incessant and unproven warnings from those who believe implicitly in the theory of man-made global warming is that this is not the most important threat to mankind.
Not by any stretch of the imagination.
That dubious honor belongs to the threat of the declining sperm count being experienced by men in western countries.
This problem has the ability to decimate the world's population within a few generations.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.