And the method used by almost all of these false prophets to justify their criticism of those with differing views is to accuse their opponents of being in “denial” of reality.
It is as if the accusation would have the effect of leaving the word scarred on the forehead of anyone brave enough to voice an opinion contrary to the party line - a bit like pointing the Christian cross at Count Dracula’s sweaty brow or branding the Jews with serial numbers during the Holocaust.
The truth of course is that, in most instances, the false prophets (ie those promoting human responsibility for virtually every extraordinary climate event) are the ones who are in denial.
It gets worse!
Ironically, the false accusations are usually the end result of a disingenuous mis-representation of the opponents’ position in the debate.
How does this happen?
Let’s start with a few home truths.
Most of those who share my beliefs about the current climate change phenomenon are amongst the first to acknowledge the existence of climate change in all its forms.
No one is more aware of nature’s warning signals than those who are most likely to be suffering the effects of these adverse events at the coal face - ie farmers or those who support the agricultural industry. Yet we are the ones on the receiving end of most of these deliberate false representations of our views.
Our point of difference in this debate is that climate change is real but is more likely to be as the result of cyclical planetary changes that happen from time to time with varying degrees of frequency. Nothing difficult to understand there.
For example, the last “mini ice age” was recorded as recently as 400 years ago when the Thames froze over yet you could mow the lawns in Lapland, such was the impact on the main natural directors of world climate at any one time ie The Atlantic Current.
Unsurprisingly, our theory is backed by many of the world’s top climate scientists including those who are subsequently demonised for their honest interpretation of facts as they see them.
The classic example of the damage inflicted on the reputation of these brave individuals, which can only be described as deliberate persecution, is the case of the Australian marine scientist, Dr Peter Ridd, who has been fighting world authorities and his own university employers in an attempt to discredit the false view that human activity has caused the collapse of the Great Barrier Reef. Thankfully, Dr Ridd has been proved correct in holding his minority view.
This case more than any other shows how wrong even eminent scientists can be if they have vested interests in proving their own theory against one which isn’t as popular.
Farmers hold similar views that are simply based on what they know to be true and are prepared to fight to express those views until the government of the day recognises this fascist indoctrination and imposition of false agendas has no place in a society that demands to be free.
We need to work together to prepare for the effects of these cyclical variations.
The horse has already bolted and we must learn to live with, making the best of, whatever nature has in store.
Unfortunately, reducing our use of fossil fuels will have little effect on the inevitable outcome.
We need to develop policies that work and protect all groups but we don’t do that by blaming one group for all our sins. That only breeds division and hatred - supposedly the two things we are told will do us the most harm.
Who will save us then!
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
Good stuff Clive.
If I were a scientist getting paid by whoever to look at climate, I would give my paymasters the information they want to continue their crusade to cripple most countries.
After all, I would be insane not to, my financial future depends on producing information, factual or otherwise.
My hat goes off to those scientists who dare to poke their heads above the parapet and tell it how it is.
Yes, it’s great that the Great Barrier coral has recovered. I despair at the acquiescence of our farming leaders with the government’s Marxist policies in relation to farming particularly dairying. Cows don’t make carbon. Sure their digestive processes combine carbon with oxygen or hydrogen to produce carbon dioxide and methane but those simply go round I a circle. Where do cows get their carbon? From the pasture and other vegetable products they eat. Where do pasture and these vegetable products get their carbon? By photosynthesis from the atmosphere. There may be some suggestion that pasture acquires some carbon from the soil but there is research to show that grasslands actually sequester carbon in the soil.
There is a very large body of scientific research and actual empirical data which negates the man-made climate change theory. And yet, most of our politicians, journalists and popular scientists continue to propagate this flawed theory, using computer models that never agree with reality, as undisputed fact.
They insist we make drastic changes to our lifestyles with the inevitable loss of freedoms and choice in the name of saving the planet. The truth is that the planet is doing its thing just like is has for hundreds of millions of years and nothing we do will change that.
In my view, this has very little to do with climate change and almost everything to do with state technocratic control and the diminishing of democracy. More bureaucracy and devolving powers to unelected bodies and institutions which unquestioningly follow the state position, will make it much harder to change things going forward. This is the Left trying to entrench their position into the foreseeable future.
Well said Clive. Due to current 'unprecedented' warming caused by the climate emergency, retreating ice is exposing the stumps of 5,000 year old trees, 100km north of the current tree line in Canada (and many other places). This is one of many items of evidence showing that in the recent past, temperatures were much warmer than now. Whatever caused that warmth, it was not the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combusting hunter-gatherer tribes. So it has been warm in the recent past (geologically speaking) with any human contribution negligible. Chemistry shows that the solubility of all gases in water increases at cooler temperatures. The opposite also applies - as cool water warms, it will out-gas previously dissolved gases. So is the current increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration caused by rising temperatures, or vice versa?
Current climate change may well be correlated with human activity and one might even accept it's a causal relationship to some degree. However, we don't know what degree, i.e. how much is caused by human activity compared with natural planetary cycles. Therefore, we have no idea beyond crystal ball gazing called computer modelling how much impact if any will be achieved by reducing our carbon or other emissions.
Also, there is no proof that the greenhouse gas theory provides a correct understanding of the process of current warming. For example, 'human activity' includes the production of previously nonexistent chemicals that maintain serious depletion of the ozone layer (although somewhat improved, still seriously depleted) thereby letting a lot more solar energy into our atmosphere. Apparently that has been ruled out as a cause of warming but I have never seen an explanation for this. It stands to reason that if the increased wavelengths of solar energy cause high incidence of skin cancer, then they must add to warming. (Also, that radiation kills off sea algae so that's impairing the biggest carbon sink on the planet, so if the greenhouse gas theory is valid it's also caused by ozone depletion.)
Weirdly, ozone is actually considered a greenhouse gas so perhaps we should again legalize the production of chlorofluorocarbons to get rid of as much of it as possible. The explanation offered is that ozone in lower atmosphere is greenhouse and in upper atmosphere it's u.v. filtering, but that really makes little sense. Wherever the ozone is surely it will filter out some solar energy coming in.
What should be clearly understood is that our political parties and system have been taken over by what C.S Lewis called OMNIPOTENT MORAL BUSYBODIES.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
The fault lies with the rest of us who have allowed this dangerous minority to take over our democratic system and use it agai9nst us.
The solution is for thousands of sensible normal citizens who understand the virtue of minding one's own business and leaving others to do the same to join, participate, disrupt and reform our system by selecting representatives that are not omnipotent moral busybodies.
Democracy can only be saved by the participation of sensible and decent people who respect privacy, freedom and independence from the tyranny of any minority.
The government of the day serves only those people who were active in selecting and promoting representatives to further their interests when elected.
Those who are not involved in the selection of candidates do not get represented. They just pay the price for a dysfunctional government.
I believe that it would be quite unreasonable to claim that humans do not contribute to the changes in climate we are currently seeing, the big question is how much. One solution which doesn't seem to attract much attention is a reduction in the number of beings causing the problem. Yes I am thinking the unthinkable, less children, lower world population, less demand on all of the earth's resources.
The focus on 'climate change', ' carbon emissions'-etc - has all gotten rather hysterical. The sea levels are not rising. The great barrier reef is essentially the same as it was 20 years ago.
Buckminster Fuller coined the phrase "Spaceship Earth". We should be focusing more on two things:-
1. population control - basically - stop breeding
2. re-cycling - a good start has been made but much more needs to be done.
Post a Comment