Global Warming To Climate Change To Extreme Weather

Climate change is a controversial topic, to say the least. I'm not going to start a controversial discussion though, or I'll try not to. What I want to talk about is how this topic is discussed in mainstream media and politics, and how that reflects on my personal opinion on the matter.

_{"The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause." - source: Watts Up With That?}

People can be made to believe anything. Take the tragic events of September 11th 2001; so much people still blindly believe the official story about 19 terrorists hijacking 4 planes, armed with only box-cutters and using those planes to demolish 3 high rise buildings and heavily damage the world's most heavily guarded building, the Pentagon, in the world's most heavily guarded airspace. And they planned it all in some caves somewhere in the Middle East. Everyone in the world has seen the buildings come down in a straight line at almost free-fall speed; clearly a result of planned demolition, as that's the only way a building can be brought straight down into it's own footprint. This is not difficult to understand, nor does it take a degree in math or physics; all the support-columns have to give way at the exact same time for the building not to topple over to one side. On that day not 1, not 2, but three buildings fell straight down, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane.

The above is enough to warrant a closer investigation of the greatest crime ever done to mankind, yet scores of people simply refuse to question the official narrative. It simply cannot be as simple as plane hits building, fuel burns, building collapses straight down. Three times. When never before anything remotely like it has ever happened. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic; don't forget we still live under the black shadow of that fateful day as all over the world liberties have been taken away in the resulting "war on terrorism". In mainstream discussions, people like me, who dare to question the official narrative, are called "nutty conspiracy theorists", and especially in the months and years after the attacks it was even called "blasphemy" to question the righteousness of the western troops that went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries that had nothing to do with the attacks; the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia mainly, but we would never attack our allies, now would we?

Through the years I've had many discussions about this with many people, and the response is often something like "I refuse to believe...", or "if that would be true I'd lose all confidence..." If this brutal attack was a false flag operation to justify and create popular support for new wars in the Middle-East, then all the wars of the past two decades, are based on a lie, and all the money and lifes were lost for nothing. That's a tough cookie to swallow, so I can to a degree understand the reluctance to even think about it. The years of repeating the threat of terrorism by governments and mainstream media have created a special kind of cognitive dissonance when it comes to discussing 9/11.

_{Image by: typographyimage - sourc: Pixabay}

I've seen the same happen to the discussion about climate change; in mainstream channels it's blasphemous to question the supposed "scientific consensus" on human-caused climate change. I have a problem with that. Science is not a religion and "consensus" is always changing in science; not having consensus, always questioning the conclusions and the evidence they are based upon, to disprove previously held convictions, that's what science is about. Consensus is something for cultures and politicians. Only after many years of not changing a conclusion, despite continuous efforts through research and peer reviews to disprove said conclusion, can something in science be called a consensus, like with evolution theory, or even Newtons laws of gravity. Einstein only expanded upon Newton, he never disproved anything done by Newton, so yes, there's consensus here too.

With regards to the earth's climate there's consensus on a lot of things; the climate is changing, CO2 concentrations are rising, it is getting warmer, the climate is infinitely complicated, and the models we base the predictions on for the coming decades are far from complete or accurate. This is all true. What's not true is that the climate is controlled by CO2 alone. What's not true is that we can prove that CO2 emissions by humans is causing the climate to warm up. The climate is influenced by many things, most of them natural, just like it always has. It's a gross simplification of reality to say that we have one control button that says "CO2", with which we can control the climate. When looking back several millions of years, through the several ice-ages, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration. CO2 is plant-food and back when the earth was much greener, there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we can ever hope to reach by burning fuel. These are all simple facts we can all agree upon and are not disputed by the IPCC even.

Notice how the language has changed: it used to be called "global warming", and when it was clear not everybody fell for it, it became "climate change", something we all agree on, the climate changes indeed, it always has and always will, and when we had some years with more forest fires and tornado's, it changed to "extreme weather", to bring back some sense of urgency. When questioning the official narrative results in accusations of blasphemy, that narrative has become a religion, and the questioners are called heretics. That's when I get suspicious, because I know this is how people can be made to believe anything. You know, like a building crashing straight down after getting hit by an airplane. So, my position on human-caused climate change is that it's not proven, we just don't know. Just like with 9/11, I don't know the truth of it all, I don't know what happened that day or who is responsible, all I know is that the official narrative is a lie or a partial truth at best.

_{Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015}

---

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Genius Move By Tron?
1999 Anti PC Rant	The Tyranny Of Positivity
Absent Objectivity	Taking Care Of Shit
The Purpose Of Fantasy	Strongest Man In The World?

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!

I am a proud helpinaut! @Helpie is looking for new members! Helpie has been growing nicely and we are always on the lookout for new valuable members. We are very supportive and community oriented. If you would like to be scouted for @helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.

Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:

Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO



@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!