Opinion: The Climate Truth
Statistics are a tool for furthering agendas and they can be bent, twisted or skewed to suit any cause. The current debate over climate change and the science that proves or disproves the responsibility of mankind is case in point of how numbers can be used to sway minds. This will help sort out the truth.
With the American President’s announcement that the U.S will abandon the Paris agreement on global climate change, there is renewed debate over the science and statistical data by opposing sides looking to further their own not-so-hidden agendas. For me personally, climate change has never been worth arguing over simply because I’m a pessimist and don’t believe the human race has the ability to come together to solve issues of that magnitude.
So-called progressives and so-called conservatives stake out contrary positions and cherry pick data to support positions that their corrupt leadership selects for them. At the heart of every political debate is the quest for power. Depending on who you listen to, the argument about climate change varies from the disagreement over the reality of the phenomena to what the role of mankind is vs the cyclical nature of the planet. Underneath it all is the desire for economic and political control.
Both sides line up well funded “respected” scientists to spew data which they claim proves their argument. Oddly enough, both side of the debate recognize that the planet has seen major climate shifts long before the advent of man-made technology. Still the current point of difference circles around the disagreement over whether or not that kind of change is currently happening and to what degree man-made technology is the cause, if any.
Lost in all the arguments and struggle for power is common sense. The truth is that whether or not man has the capacity to cause or fix global climate conditions really doesn’t matter. Even common house pets understand the simple basic concept of “you don’t shit where you eat”. Being kind and gentle to the environment and the planet we inhabit doesn’t need to be a political issue. It’s a matter of simple common sense. Even in the so-called conservatives are 100% correct that mankind has no responsibility for the Earth or what happens to it, each individual does own some responsibility. The “progressives” seeking one-world government do more harm to the cause of true environmentalism by taking responsibility away from individuals and putting it on the power elite that they claim caused the problem in the first place.
The fact is that conservatism has given way to consumerism and if not for that than environmentalism would be their cause. Conservation, if not applied to the world we live in is pointless. We want to preserve the American way, the right to the latest iPhone or big screen TV. We want to protect profiteers and the drive for more stuff. As someone who has always considered himself a conservative, this concept is repugnant to me. Stuff, the need to consume, has nothing to do with the conservative ideals I know.
On the other side, you have the “progressive movement”, which at its nuclear center is about putting power in that hands of an elite central world power. How did environmentalism become that cause of this group? It didn’t. It became a tool to rally the masses into the coral so they can be controlled and willing give up their individual responsibility. As long as the government has it under control and I don’t have to think about it, I’m happy and I still can hold onto all the modern comforts that consumerism and man-made technology provide.
My personal pessimism aside, the solution could be ours if we collectively decided to let others do the thinking for us and employ true conservation. Understanding that what most of us think of as poverty today would have likely been seen as abundance to our ancestors. Thinking of the planet as our home and treating it with the same individual care we treat our homes. Realizing that our lives are cluttered with more stuff than we need, ALL OF US, and that nature prefers simple things is where the solution is. Of course, I am a pessimist so I don’t believe any of us, or at least not enough of us, will ever embrace that solution. So we go on arguing and grasping at conflicting statistical data and cling to the notion the other side is stupid for not recognizing the science.