The politics and economics of climate change

Credit: SonovaMin

Kids taking a day off school to protest climate change indicates the extent of political pressure in the classroom and the unscientific view of climate being drummed into children’s heads.

Here?s what the Maori climate change commissioner, Donna Awatere-Huata, said on the AM show after she endorsed children’s wagging school to protest climate change. Quote.

?We have um abrogated our responsibility as we have on so many things, um? but this is one where I think these young people are right to say ?we are going to hold you to account, you can?t keep your heads in the sand, you know, it?  the science of this is right now, so get on with it.? End of quote.

AM Show

We can do without a Maori climate change commissioner if this is all she?s got to offer, because the science on climate change is far from ?right? and it is far from settled.

  • Scientists do not agree that increased emissions of CO2 adversely affect the planet;
  • Scientists do not agree that increased CO2 emissions are the dominant factor in higher temperatures worldwide;
  • Scientists do not agree that increased CO2 emissions are man-made; and
  • Scientists do not agree that global warming will cause rising seas leading to a global catastrophe.

At some point, our heavily brainwashed youth will find out that they are barking up the wrong tree in thinking that they can prevent climate change.

Roger Kimball writes for the CO2 Coalition about the politics of weather and climate change. Quote.

? is impossible to turn anywhere in our enlightened, environmentally conscious world without being beset by lectures about one?s ?carbon footprint? and horror tales about ?global warming,? ?rising seas,? and imminent ecological catastrophe.

??we all ?know? that carbon dioxide is ?bad for the environment.? (In fact, it is a prerequisite for life.)

We ?know? that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching historically unprecedented and dangerous levels. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been living through a CO2 famine.)

We ?know? that ?global warming??or, since there has been no warming for about eighteen years, that ?climate change??has caused a sudden rise in the seas. (In fact, the seas have been rising for the last 20,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.)

We ?know? that, when it comes to the subject of climate change, the ?science is settled,? that ?97 percent of scientists? agree that global warming is anthropogenic, which is Greek for ?caused by greedy corporate interests and the combustion of fossil fuels.?

It?s really quite extraordinary how much we do know that ain?t so.

[…] But of course, science is only part of the issue. You cannot read far into the literature on climate change before you realize that science is often dragged in as window dressing for the real issues, which are political, on the one hand, and economic, on the other.

The two hands, it is worth pointing out, belong to the same body and are working to feed the same maw.?

The CO2 Coalition end quote.

This provides the answer to the question: how did our children arrive at the brainwashed state we find them in now?

The answer lies in the relationship between climate change, politics and money. Actually, it boils down to wealth – who has the wealth and who wants to take that wealth away? We’ve had a small taste of that here when the government put an end to oil and gas exploration. Quote.

Climate alarmism can also be a pretext for the redistribution of wealth on a global scale. You can never be green enough, Comrade, and climate change offers a potent pretext for the consolidation of governmental power: it is, as one wag put, the ?killer app? for extending governmental control.

end quote.

What is presented in schools comes in media fueled and funded by the green movement, its lobbyists and the carbon credit industry driven by the UN. They all owe their very existence to being ‘green’ and their survival rests on their ability to fight to the death any attempts to destroy that ‘green’ foundation.

Scientist and founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, spoke to Fox News about leaving Greenpeace, which abandoned its scientific basis in the 1980s after being hijacked by militant left wingers. Greenpeace became an international politically motivated organisation requiring constant funding to keep it alive.

Scientists worldwide who disagree with the generally accepted and promulgated version of climate change have been researching, experimenting and producing reports on the effect of increased CO2 emissions on the environment. These are the CO2 emissions that climate changers warn us are dangerous for the environment.

But far from promising death to the planet, these scientists say that CO2, along with water, is the building block of all life on earth. Hence, larger quantities of CO2 are a good thing. Increased CO2 makes plants grow bigger faster, increases their water retention – meaning they need less water, and makes them less susceptible to disease.

Banning the use of fossil fuels in order to save the planet is equally ridiculous. Fossil fuels contribute 85% of the world?s energy and the greenies do not have a workable total replacement option.

Should the greenies get their wish to ban fossil fuels worldwide, eight billion people would starve to death because fossil fuels are currently the only way to fuel the daily transportation of tonnes of fresh produce worldwide.

Think on that, Green Party members, as you haul yourself off to your lavish lunches at the Beehive.