climatards are ruining our world

while Earth's climate keeps on changing, as always.

One may wonder how many of those who line up behind the various “STOP CLIMATE CHANGE” slogans who really know what they are asking for. Earth's climate neither will, nor can it, stop changing with Earth's changing posi­tion and angle relative to all the large and small bodies that make up our solar system, and the activity on/in each of those heavenly bodies, at any given time. The sun itself of course being the main con­tri­butor to Earth's climate and changes in same, and to life itself as we know it.

Human activity, or lack of same, has not had signi­fi­cant impact on Earth's overall climate through­out our entire history up until now. And that won't change regard­less of sizes of groups of learned and laymen that we are being told make up consensus in any direction on the subject at hand, or in any other field where scien­tific metho­do­logy is, or is supposed to have been, applied.
Having reached consensus” does not mean much in true scientific circles. Only properly col­lec­ted, tested and proven data counts on the end­less road to ever-im­proved under­standing in any and all scien­tific fields and branches.

hypothesizing on route to improved under­standing

Coming up with hypo­the­sizes – tentative expla­na­tions for obser­va­tions, pheno­menon, or scien­tific problems that can be tested by further inves­ti­gation, can be very use­ful while on the search for poten­tial expla­na­tions. However, hypo­the­si­zing only makes sense as long as one does not see and treat the various out­comes as if they were proven facts. Hypothe­sises are at best only theories, and often not very good ones.
No true and serious scien­tists will base his/​her con­clu­sions and recom­men­da­tions solely on hypo­the­sises and incom­plete, non-repro­duc­ible lab-tests.

Given the above; the only sane con­clu­sion I can come up with, is that no true and/​or serious scientists are behind or involved in forming the “CO2 as a major climate-altering pollution” theory/​sham that is used to legi­ti­mize all the des­truc­tive acti­vity that has been, and is, initiated and promoted by national and global poli­tical and busi­ness enti­ties.

All evidence up to present day, indicates that the various “climate experts” have built, and continue to build, a layer-cake of hypo­the­sizes, unquali­fied guess­work and plain lies out of thin air and flawed com­puter model­ling. And, on top of this col­lec­tion of unproven and mainly unprov­able theories, the self-appointed members of the leading classes seem to be more than happy to waste the world's resources, appar­ently for no other reasons than to gain and keep control over the rest of us, while lining their own pockets with our money.

why do they resort to name-calling?

You've got reason to think something really fishy is going on, when those who choose to ignore what they do not like about climate change info from the past, and even try to rewrite and/​or erase his­tori­cal data and docu­men­ta­tion when such a practice serves their own interests and computer gene­rated climate prognoses, get to call people (like myself) who are critical to such attempts at history falsi­fi­cation, totally inap­pro­pri­ate names like “climate deniers” and “flat earth'ers”, with­out being called out on the name-calling all across media and more serious circles.

Only people who stand to lose (a lot) on being looked in the cards and risk being found to cheat, will fall to the level of using name calling against people who do not agree with them, before even attempting to back up their posi­tions with veri­fi­able facts and data.
So far not a single expert, layperson or poli­ti­cian on the “anthro­po­genic climate change emergency” side in the fields of science, politics and business, has presented any­thing that holds water to back up their claims. Just more of the same, or rather nothing at all except for the name calling and attempts at ridiculing and censoring those of us who find no reason to agree with them, is coming from that side.
One may call such a “name-calling tactic” what­ever one fancy, but it certainly isn't a science based meth­od­ol­ogy no matter what any­one calls it.

As can be observed in my own articles – including this, I do resort to a little name calling myself at times. Cannot help it after having read so many articles and stubs with weak or totally missing reasoning and logic for why climatards regard CO2 as a pol­lu­tant that should be removed from Earth's atmos­phere – liter­ally a deadly thought, as most plant­life still suffers from star­va­tion with the about 420ppm the CO2 level has increased to as we write year 2022.
Too many clima­tards seem to aim for an atmos­pheric CO2 level at zero, without taking into account that all plant­life on Earth will die if CO2 levels fall much below 200ppm. Long before then all herbi­vores, carni­vores and omni­vores will of course have disappeared for lack of suste­nance, and only micro­organ­isms – extre­mo­philes and such – will still exist on a pretty barren Earth.

time to get real…

The most ignorant climatards' suicidal goal of zero atmos­pheric CO2, will of course never be fulfilled no matter how hard they try. Nature itself will counter all their attempts, by drawing on its many natural sources, and reduce uptake of CO2 into Earth's oceans.

Not even the more balanced goals of reducing anthro­po­genic CO2 contri­bu­tions towards pre-industrial levels make sense, since the impact on Earth's climate by reaching such goals will be next to zero no matter the degree of success that can be sold to the masses.

However, it is both unreal and some­what scary that such a degree of ignorance still exists on this planet. Something is seriously wrong with the educa­tion systems in modern societies, when funda­mental know­ledge about life itself is missing.

About time we, as individuals, start looking at the world around us through our own eyes, and quit buying other people's ready-made illu­sions and pre­sen­ta­tions of it. Nature has its own order based on uni­ver­sal forces, and is never lying to us. On the other hand, those of the human race who have put them­selves in charge here on Earth, can hardly ever be trusted in any matter.
So many forms for real anthro­po­genic pollu­tion to the air, sea, soil, and directly into our bodies in these days and age, that we all should focus on reducing or elimi­na­ting. So much we could, and should, do for our­selves, our local and global environ­ments, and fellow men and other crea­tures, great and small, we share the world with, if only we paid atten­tion to our very own obser­va­tions and intel­li­gence, rather than “the settled science” we are being told to believe.
Ideally the CO2 levels in Earth's atmos­phere should have been increased to well above 800ppm, to create near-optimal growth-con­di­tions world­wide for most of the food­plants we humans and most herbi­vorous animals have pref­er­ences for.

now it's my turn…

After having read thou­sands of papers con­tain­ing one or more sets of the many inter­preta­tions of “CO2 levels versus climate changes” that have been written over the last five decades – mainly found on the internet, my con­clu­sion have to be that none of them are very con­vin­cing. The spread alone makes me doubt both the serious­ness and intel­li­gense behind most of those papers I have gone through.

As I (luckily) have no position in, or con­nec­tions to, any of the more or less official data ana­lyz­ing, scientific paper producing, and deci­sion making organi­sa­tions, I can allow myself the privilige to calmly study what has been presented by others and come up with my very own con­clu­sions, or build up my own hypo­thes­ises if you like.
I do not have to be in agree­ment with any­body on Earth, and nobody on Earth has to be in agree­ment with me.

Following are a few points from my latest collec­tion of “climate change prognoses”…

a) The atmos­pheric CO2 levels will (hopefully) keep on rising year by year, at least for much of this century. Driven by natural processes, and in almost total disregard of human cal­cu­la­tions, decisions, and actions aimed at regu­la­ting it.
b) CO2 levels will (once again) be proven to have next to zero direct impact on any of Earth's tempe­ra­ture and weather regu­la­ting factors, except as the very local results of rising CO2 levels' “greening effects” (increased growth and spread of plant­life) affecting wind patterns, precip­i­tation, and sun­shine induced temp­era­tures at ground-levels.
c) Earth's overall tempe­ra­tures and climate will vary with the known (and maybe some minor and as of yet not well known and/​or under­stood) universal cycles.
We will continue to observe and (hope­fully) learn more about the various changes and how best to adjust to them, instead of trying to fight them as currently is the official policy. No climate change emergencies in sight, at least not until the next fully-fledged ice age.

So there, this “flat-earth'er” has, once again, served some of his very personal and not very poli­ti­cally correct views and opinions regarding Earth's evolving climate in the immediate future. And, of course, views and opinions still are just that: stop­gap responses, solu­tions and substi­tutes, to tempo­rarily fill holes where know­ledge is incom­plete.
So much more to learn…

What I am 100% sure of at this time, is that there is absolutely no reason for the world-ruining and des­truc­tive global climate alarmism, and that our focus should be on cleaning up our acts regarding the ongoing polu­tion of environ­ment and minds, show respect for nature in all its forms, plan and work for sustain­a­bility wherever it matters, and figure out how to live in peace across all borders and other man-made divides on this planet we call “Earth”.
For the fore­see­able future we won't have an alter­na­tive planet for the sur­vivors to evacuate to, if we get it wrong on this one.

sincerely  georg; signature

Hageland 12.nov.2022
last rev: 12.nov.2022

www.gunlaug.comadvice upgradeadvice upgrade navigation