Decoding Climate Change: Is the Narrative Driven by Science or Power?

31st December 2024

Listen to article here:

A Political and Economic Scheme to Drive a Socialistic Climate Credit System?

The narrative of global warming, now commonly referred to as climate change, has become central to global policy, economics, and public discourse. However, there's a contentious debate suggesting that this narrative might be less about environmental stewardship and more about political and economic manipulation. Critics argue that climate change policies are being used to centralize control and create economic opportunities for a select few, potentially paving the way for a socialistic climate credit scheme.

Understanding Climate Change: Beyond the Mainstream Narrative

Climate change as a natural phenomenon is acknowledged by scientists, but the narrative that it's primarily driven by human activity and will inevitably lead to catastrophic outcomes has long sparked heated debate. The idea that CO2, a naturally occurring gas integral to ecological processes, is the chief culprit behind rising temperatures oversimplifies the issue. This perspective ignores a wealth of other significant factors influencing temperatures and weather changes, that should be considered in scientific discourse, including solar mass ejections (a primary influencer), volcanic eruptions, changes in atmospheric gases, UV radiation levels, and geological data from sources like Vostok ice cores and ocean sediment cores, which provide insights spanning millions of years.

Historical data from various sources, including ice cores and sediment records, reveal that the Earth has experienced significantly higher temperatures long before human influence or the industrial era. During these periods, CO2 levels were often lower than current ratios, contradicting the political narrative that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature increases. Many climate and environmental scientists are aware of this significant discrepancy, yet they remain silent, primarily to secure their livelihoods through research funding and job stability. Speaking out could lead to professional ostracism, job loss, and public vilification, a pattern observed well before 2020 within the environmental science field. This situation mirrors the experiences of doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic who faced similar repercussions for challenging prevailing narratives.

Real objective environmental scientists are hard to find, as if you are funded for being a pro-climate crisis scientist, you get funding easily, otherwise you get no funding at all. Objective scientists or environmental researchers and campaigners that have no stake holds or corporate sponsors or energy sponsors take into account unbiased data from our biggest influencer on climate change ( the Sun). Generally, the mainstream narrative focus is on measuring Carbon dioxide levels trapped in ice cores, ignoring other important empirical data that is mostly ignored in the objective scientific overview such as weather, gas ratios in the atmosphere, volcanic activity, weather balloons, tree rings and seabed cores, which show data going back millions of years, yet you never read about the data from these important climate science sources.

We need to preserve wildlife, the forests and oceans, however, we will look at how this topic is being used by politicians to lie to the people for financial gain and control of people’s freedom and privacy. Most people attribute the climate debate to anthropogenic activity, while this article greatly acknowledges the significant role human actions play in driving ecocide, it also critiques the "wrong kind of green" — misleading or superficial environmental solutions as well as weather manipulation which are also greatly influencing climate, (not in a positive way), as is portrayed by the media or governments. The goal is to restore some balance in the debate, with a fresh approach to understanding the science driving climate change and discrepancies behind dictated government initiatives to mitigate the issues.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that social engineering has always played a role in shaping societal advancements, often driven by political agendas. These agendas significantly influence both the climate conversation and the solutions presented to the public. By examining these factors in detail, hopefully this article challenges readers to think critically about the broader influences at play in these environmental issues.