ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Explaining the Climate Change Hoax (and why the Paris Accords was a faux)

Updated on April 12, 2020
Ken Burgess profile image

Grew up on Cape Cod, Mass. Army Vet., Fmr. Director of Energy Conservation programs, RE Agent. Current residence: the Space Coast, FL.

Update April 2020

It was three years ago that this article was originally written, and like with many things, over the course of time knowledge and information relevant to this topic has grown, I am aware of more now than then.

But I want to be clear, despite what information I had then or now, I always held the position that we must change our ways, as a species. We must move away from polluting the earth with incalculable amounts of plastic. The more plastic we produce the more certain the ecosystems that provide us with food are doomed to become toxic to us.

The more fracking we do, the more certain we are to poison the remaining fresh water aquifers that we have, soon a gallon of fresh water will cost us more than a gallon of gasoline.

So while I do not believe we are creating a global warming catastrophe, I do believe we are creating a global poisoning catastrophe. We are destroying ecosystems and water sources that will take generations to recover. We are destroying the Amazon forest miles at a time per day, so we can give more grazing ground to cattle. Global warming is the least of our concerns... the real threats to our existence we are all but ignoring.

Below are two very informative videos that discuss possible other threats to our civilization, as well as the cyclic nature of disasters that have hit our planet over and over (like clockwork) and how we are in the midst of one of those turning points in our global history now.

I suspect the reason why such information (noted in the video above) was classified and a campaign of misinformation was made decades ago regarding it, would be that we have no control over it. Widespread knowledge could only produce panic and hysteria on a grand scale.

How does one accept the fact that no matter what we do, we are in the final decades (at best) before a polar flip?

The poles are moving faster than researchers expected, they have begun to move so fast that scientists have had to make emergency GPS adjustments for ships and planes, location information was simply too inaccurate to allow it to remain on the books without updates occurring yearly now (it used to be every 5 years).

The north magnetic pole is headed for Russia, despite studying the Earth’s magnetic field for a long time, we still know relatively little about what forces deep within the Earth affect it.

Many scientists now believe that the movement of the poles tell we are nearing an upcoming polar flip. Earth’s poles have flipped many times in the past, and this may be the very type of event that created Biblical events that have come down to us through the centuries such as The Great Flood.

Forward with the Original Article

Many 'Climate Change Advocates' have their hearts in the right places, for mostly the right reasons, but they are being misled by their government, and particular institutions which are determined to find new ways to tax and control us.

The Paris Accords and other efforts being proposed by global warming advocates would ultimately cost hundreds of billions of dollars in additional taxes, regulations, and restrictions. Most of the proposed “solutions” are based upon massive government bureaucratic programs that will ultimately reduce personal freedoms and impose additional costs upon the citizens of all nations, especially those who can least afford it.

If these Accords and Regulations were to target the real and controllable man made problems... Methane gas and over grazing created by the meat industry, plastic rising to toxic levels in the oceans and becoming invasive in all our food sources, chemical toxicity in our sources of drinking water becoming an epic catastrophe in the making... I would be backing them 100%, but instead their focus is on 'carbon footprints' and 'taxing' those they say are responsible for it.

There is a better approach to addressing the matter of 'global climate change' rather than the campaign of mass hysteria being promoted by the mainstream media, much of academia, and many of the special interest groups that stand to profit from their “doom and gloom” pandemonium. The best solutions for preserving our environment will come from private enterprise that truly drives innovation, new technology, and truth in education, rather than indoctrination and efforts to squash all individualism in an effort to create a global collectivism.

Climate change occurs, no doubt, the earth has a pretty consistent history of it that can be traced back, that has to do with all sorts of things from the Earth's rotation and shifting tilt to what life forms are predominant in the oceans. The biggest factor of them all, one that can be shown to coincide with temperatures rising and lowering on earth for centuries, is the Sun itself. There are plenty of people who realize that once you look at all the facts, its pretty clear mankind has had, and is having far less impact than 'climate change fanatics' would like to believe.

Carbon has been MUCH higher in the atmosphere as recently as 11,000+ years ago, which also coincides with when we believe we had great melting incidents of glaciers, and ocean levels rose over 30+ feet.

Yes, many problems can be attributed to mankind from air pollution to regional drought, but there is so much evidence that shows the global rise and fall of temperature is beyond our control, it is hard to imagine it is all ignored so that this myth about manmade 'climate change' can be fostered upon the world's populace. As the Documentary below explains in great detail.

Perhaps what caused the catastrophic flood that occurred more than 10,000 years ago and caused the oceans to rise some 30 feet (some believe up to 300 feet) was indeed man. It is somewhat of a 'secret' still, but there is overwhelming proof that human civilization had reached a level of achievement (and perhaps population levels as well) that could be compared to our own some 12,000 years ago.

Was Mankind numerous enough then, did its civilization help to create that catastrophic event, known today in references around the world as the 'great flood'?

It is said that all of North America was under a giant glacier hundreds of feet tall, and that practically overnight (months, years) something caused it to melt away. When you consider the volcanic hotbed that the entire region known as 'Yellowstone Park' is known to be, or the various meteor theories, there are a variety of things which could have had an incalculable effect on the Northern American continent (and any glaciers there), there is reason enough to believe more than a few of the explanations for what clearly was a flood of such enormous magnitude that it carved its way through half the continent leaving evidence as such as the Grand Canyon.

The 'what caused it' is being debated by those more interested in historical accuracies than myself. But it would seem to give a lot of credit to mankind, to say he nearly destroyed himself, and did destroy his civilization as it was some 12,000 years ago, and is doing it all over again today.

Personally I believe a bigger threat to the world right now is our industrial efforts in the meat industry, we have felled more forest area to create grazing area for our hundreds of millions of cows, sheep and goats than for any other reason in the last 100 years. This according to plenty of studies which can be found in various articles, videos, etc.. as can be seen here in this short (5 min) video:

Of course we are the ones raising cows and slaughtering them in horrific rates and inhumane conditions, which means man is indeed the cause of the problem. If we all ate more salads and less cows, we would not only be healthier, we would be helping cure 'global warming'.

This next video lumps many of the issues together, methane being their biggest concern, this is a Princeton production no less. It points out clearly (IMO) that the biggest threat to our futures is the increasing production of methane levels in our atmosphere (hello meat industry!) and the threat of the frozen methane pockets under the oceans escaping into the atmosphere.

OK, I've given some food for thought, what do you think on the matter?

See results

© 2017 Ken Burgess


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      You have that right on.

      Right now we have gas prices well over $4 a gallon.

      Here is the current gas prices across the country. California is the highest.


      Louisiana 2.444 Prices Falling

      South Carolina 2.457 Prices Falling

      Mississippi 2.463 Prices Falling

      Alabama 2.470 Prices Falling

      Oklahoma 2.502 Prices Falling

      Arkansas 2.514 Prices Falling

      Texas 2.543 Prices Falling

      Tennessee 2.559 Prices Falling

      Missouri 2.589 Prices Falling

      Kansas 2.593 Prices Falling

      Virginia 2.609 Prices Falling

      North Carolina 2.651 Prices Falling

      Georgia 2.665 Prices Falling

      Kentucky 2.673 Prices Falling

      Florida 2.674 Prices Falling

      Delaware 2.675 Prices Falling

      Ohio 2.694 Prices Falling

      New Mexico 2.705 Prices Falling

      Iowa 2.716 Prices Falling

      Minnesota 2.727 Prices Falling

      New Hampshire 2.736 Prices Falling

      South Dakota 2.742 Prices Falling

      North Dakota 2.751Prices Falling

      Wyoming 2.755 Prices Falling

      Maryland 2.762 Prices Falling

      West Virginia 2.766 Prices Falling

      Vermont 2.795 Prices Falling

      Maine 2.809 Prices Falling

      Nebraska 2.821 Prices Falling

      Colorado 2.823 Prices Falling

      Massachusetts 2.832 Prices Falling

      Wisconsin 2.834 Prices Falling

      Rhode Island 2.852 Prices Falling

      Montana 2.855 Prices Falling

      New Jersey 2.893 Prices Falling

      Indiana 2.893 Prices Falling

      Michigan 2.915 Prices Falling

      New York 2.935 Prices Falling

      Washington DC 2.943 Prices Falling

      Connecticut 2.969 Prices Falling

      Pennsylvania 3.013 Prices Falling

      Illinois 3.040 Prices Falling

      Arizona 3.142 Prices Falling

      Utah 3.183 Prices Falling

      Idaho 3.186 Prices Falling

      Alaska 3.410 Prices Falling

      -------------- Look where these Blue States are -----------------------

      Oregon 3.412 Prices Falling

      Nevada 3.493 Prices Falling

      Washington 3.517 Prices Falling

      Hawaii 3.583 Prices Falling

      California 4.050 Prices Falling


    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      2 years ago from Florida

      Cali is a perfect example of where 'progressive' aka Democrat politics would take this country... say all the right things... be totally broke, have dams and electric grids breaking down everywhere, etc.

      If CA didn't have Federal Reserve tax dollars to siphon off from the rest of the nation, it would be no better off than Venezuela

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      Your last paragraph is also my point but it extends to the world countries. There is no measurable action, it is just consensus to agree.

      The US Government is the biggest user of fossil fuel in the World. And as you say, if there is a problem they have not done anything.

      The secondary big users of fossil fuels are the airlines that crisscross around the globe 24-7. The demand for jet fuel is increasing as is the number of passengers as the world population will soon find it way to 8 Billion people. These additional 1 Billion people will need more infrastructure, more food, more resources and more everything.

      One only has to look at CA where it has doubled its population since the 80s, but has done little but tax and not significantly increased its infrastructure.

      The nationwide electrical grid is ancient, and it is a wonder that it works well at all.

      The US doesn't have a single High Speed Train. There is a California High Speed Train project, but it has stalled after ten years without a single mile of track.

      The HST would be electric, and it would take some of the load from the short 500 mile trips from the airlines. This would also reduce traffic on the local and intrastate highways.

      If we added some rail to airport connections, it would significantly reduce road traffic in Los Angeles. There are five airports near LAX in a thirty mile radius, but there is no rail connection. If we add in rail connections to Disney Land, Magic Mountain, Knotts Berry Farm, Universal Studios and other high visitor sites this would also reduce road traffic, and fossil fuels.

      CA also has a thousand miles of ocean that could be used for generating electricity, and desalinization to get drinking water. We are getting close to the 40 million mark in population and that is more than 10% of the population of the US.

      CA has been run by democrats forever, and that is what the left envisions as the model for the country.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      2 years ago from Florida


      You stated: "Our (my!) easy use of this "smart phone" comes at the expense of severely-displaced fellow humans.

      Our (my!) easy and extensive travel by the burning of fossil-derived fuel, puts an ENORMOUS amount of excess heat into the earth's envelope which can and does affect climate and, thus, the livelihoods of all biological forms.

      Literally anything exploited for greedy gain will have disasterous effect somewhere down the line.

      To knock climate-control talk as being manipulated by political/commercial expediency can be a useful trick to deflect attention away from individual, personal responsibility.

      This applies to all of us: you, me, every politician, every CEO of every commercial enterprise."


      But before we place on the shoulders of those who can least afford it the burden of new taxes, we need to hold the politicians accountable for some of the most basic 'common sense' changes.

      "The federal government owns or leases 254,059 vehicles, excluding the military and Postal Service. That's a 20 percent increase over the past decade. The number of vehicles owned or leased by the federal government has grown by 20 percent over the past decade – to 254,059 in 2011."

      That was 2011, I'm sure the number is higher now, and that doesn't include the postal service or military.

      So if our politicians and government agencies were REALLY concerned about change, about the climate, and this wasn't some BS divisive political tool, or hood-wink excuse to hit us with more taxation, they would have a 300,000 fleet of EV vehicles (Tesla vehicles have over a 300 mile range) or some other alternative and carbon free vehicles... but why don't they?

      Maybe because Saudi Arabia/OPEC, ExxonMobil, etc. have enough influence in D.C. to make sure they keep spending our tax dollars on ICE vehicles?

      Maybe our government would spend more money improving and upgrading our Hydro-electric plants:

      The cost of hydroelectricity is relatively low, making it a competitive source of renewable electricity. The hydro station consumes no water, unlike coal or gas plants. The average cost of electricity from a hydro station larger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt hour.

      With a dam and reservoir it is also a flexible source of electricity since the amount produced by the station can be varied up or down very rapidly (as little as a few seconds) to adapt to changing energy demands. Once a hydroelectric complex is constructed, the project produces no direct waste (IE - Green House gases).

      By 1920 40% of the power produced in the United States was hydroelectric, the Federal Power Act was enacted into law. Some of the most famous and still operational hydroelectric dams in operation today are nearing 100 years old.

      The United States currently has over 2,000 hydroelectric power stations that supply 7% of its total electrical production output, which is 49% of its renewable electricity.

      It is believed that with updated and improved technology the amount of hydroelectric power that these stations supply could be doubled to supply 16% of the Nation's electricity.

      If our government/politicians were truly intent on making changes that would have an impact, these are just two examples of things that would be getting done.

    • profile image


      2 years ago

      Brad, the details of your arguments are not sufficient to provide for any meaningful argument. They start from what you desire to accept or reject as fact, not for any scientific presentation of fact.

      I am not a scientist either. I can only go by what appears to be authentic reporting by people - individuals - in the know.

      This really makes me no more knowledgable than Andrew who, a couple of years ago, stated " I'm no expert, I'm not a businessperson or a scientist, I have no vested interests in the planet save for my own family and their future." Yet he then talks about asking people to "believe in" climate change!

      If you want to base all your scepticism on that religious expression "believe in," it's pointless entering any argument at all.

      I look at the matter from what I regard as logical understanding. You or anyone else can draw whatever opinion you like, you are no more/no less accurate than I.

      From my point of view, the world IS sliding faster and faster into the mud as a result of anthropocentric activity.

      Science and technology have allowed our species to increase its population enormously over the recent past 4 generations: from around 2,500,000,000 when I was born in 1941 to 7,500,000,000 in the present time. Medicine and preventative health has been partly the catalyst for this. Also the abundant supply of fossil fuel-based nitrogenous fertiliser.

      Various other factors have also contributed to the human population explosion and greedy exploitation of resources for commercial gain.

      Open your eyes, Brad. Regard me as a silly old nonsense if you like but if you have any intelligence at all you will work hard for better ways of living. Leave the denial politics aside.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      The point is that the urgency of the climate changers is not requisite with their actions. And especially not in tune with their 12 years that they give for the tipping point to where no changes will help.

      Why are you reluctant to use the facts, or lack them here. It appears that you are looking at it as a philosophical exercise. But the problem that is being presented is in now going to be solved through the Paris Accord.

      Please look at the details and arguments that I made in my previous comments and not respond as if it is a vacuum.

      You haven't even committed to the problem, much less the solution have you? If you believe there is a real urgent problem, then what is your opinion on how to solve that problem?

    • profile image


      2 years ago

      Ok. So, we agree there's a huge amount of mis-information being put out to the world; and we can be sure it comes from those interests with ulterior motive.

      How each of us receives and interprets that mis-information will depend, in turn, on our own perceptions and ulterior motives.

      The instigators of that mis-information do not broadcast it into a vacuum. They know from their own research and psychological study what lies will be swallowed and by whom.

      If you think the world is being mis-led one way, then be careful your own interpretations are not being swayed un-reasonably in another direction.

      My main point is that the resources available to us and used/squandered in the most reckless ways, come at great expense to other human communities and many other interdependent species.

      Our (my!) easy use of this "smart phone" comes at the expense of severely-displaced fellow humans.

      Our (my!) easy and extensive travel by the burning of fossil-derived fuel, puts an ENORMOUS amount of excess heat into the earth's envelope which can and does affect climate and, thus, the livelihoods of all biological forms.

      Literally anything exploited for greedy gain will have disasterous effect somewhere down the line.

      To knock climate-control talk as being manipulated by political/commercial expediency can be a useful trick to deflect attention away from individual, personal responsibility.

      This applies to all of us: you, me, every politician, every CEO of every commercial enterprise.

      Politics can trap our minds into selfishness. Not one of us is excused.


    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      I didn't agree or understand any of your, well I can really call them arguments, statements.

      What I am saying is exactly the opposite of what you say, because without a plan of action all the science and urgency is futile.

      As it stands now, the hoax is real and it is meant to change our way of government, and that of all the countries in the world. When it comes right down to it, there has been no accomplishment since the 2011 Paris Accord. And if we believe the urgency of AOC we have twelve years before the tipping point. And if those 12 years accomplish as little as the last 8 years, it shows the urgency was fabricated for political power reasons.

      Besides the reasons for the urgency, how does the Paris Accord differ from the followers of the Hale Bopp belief that they were right.

      My opinion is that you didn't even try to argue the detailed points that I made in my previous comment. Your summary discharge of my points by ignoring them is really disappointing here.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      2 years ago from Florida


      Brad has a valid point in that the politicians do a great job promoting the urgency of the matter, wanting to raise taxes to address the matter... but accomplishing very little to change.

      OPEC is very powerful, ExxonMobil and BP and Hess are very powerful, they sway the politics and politicians, the cost on those international entities and corporations is minimal, the cost in taxes and new restrictions to the individual struggling to get by is substantial.

      Its not that I don't agree that we need to address these problems, its that I recognize that this is not what is being done, instead, it was an attempt at fleecing of the 'working class' and the excuse for it is 'climate change'.

      If the politicians/government was really focused on change, they would buy Tesla vehicles for fleet cars rather than ICE vehicles. They would put money into updating and improving hydro-electric facilities rather than waiting for them to fail, some things at this point are rather obvious I would think... the government, whether Obama or Trump, Rep or Dem, keeps buying those SUV gas guzzlers for their fleets year in and year out.... but the struggling-to-get-by citizen is expected to pay the freight for 'global warming'.

    • profile image


      2 years ago

      Brad, your have written a lot of words, mostly politico-confusionist-denialism non-sense (unless I am very much mistaken).

      That attitude is designed to take people’s minds off the ball; to cease wanting to upset the economy of your nation; to allow decision-makers and industrialist to relax, get some sleep, enjoy life without too much worry, with the understanding they will be dead before having to account for any of that complacency and denial.

      It’s true... most of us will die as a result of that attitude. Who cares?

      Do you? Maybe you have shares in the fossil fuel industry. Does that make you careful? Or complacent?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image


      2 years ago


      The Global Warming Climate Control is trying to create a sense of urgency so that people will make decisions and agreements without taking the time to think the whole thing through.

      It is like the sense of urgency that 911 created so that GW Bush could get his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no need to invade these two countries, but the artificial threat that somehow these two countries were the same as 19 terrorists would only be believed with the sense of urgency.

      The same thing occurred with Pearl Harbor and both of these wars were triggered by the same lack of US intelligence to allow the event to occur. Once they occurred then the people would get behind anything presented to them by the government.

      The people were less behind the Vietnam War because it lacked a threat to the US and the people. It also lacked a sense of urgency and that is why is was an unpopular war.

      As Climate Control, this says that we can control climate, we barely can accurately predict Climate much less control it.

      Even if the Global Warming is a real imminent threat to the world, the Paris Accord is not the solution. The Paris Accord is nothing more than conservation, where the world is going to reduce creating greenhouse gases. Conservation cannot work in a world that has an increasing population. It is like a zero sum world, and as one person reduces, another new person creates. We are over 7 billion people and we are shortly going to be 8 billion and the increases will continue.

      Each increase in population requires more resources and more infrastructure.

      As for reducing usage of fossil fuels, we don't have a viable alternative. Right now the US sanctions on Iran have created another opportunity for someone or some group to make a big profit on the artificially created shortage of available fuel. There is no real shortage, but it is being made into a daily shortage. This has in CA increased the price of fuel to well over the four dollar mark.

      The economy of the US and the world is based on cheap and plentiful fuel, and that has been fossil fuels. It runs our transportation of goods and people. This cannot be changed in the 12 AOC years, and even trying will cause an economic disaster that will be far greater than the predicted disaster from global warming.

      Ask yourself since the signing of the Paris Accord what has been the result of the world countries doing anything measurable to reduce greenhouse gases?

      The fact that 8 years has gone by and the problem now according to climate changers is dire.

      The US gave CA seed money to create a high speed rail from Los Angeles to San Francisco and in a decade they spent all the money from the US government and the money from higher taxes passed by the people. The result in not eve one mile of track. The HST would have been able to take much of the travel from LA to SF from the air to the train. And the planes fly in the altitude that is supposed to be where the greenhouse gases are collecting.

      The point is that the accord isn't the same as action, and the failure of the HST was an action that failed. If climate change was a real threat then the accord would fail to help.

      This is an example about how futile it is to expect the government to really solve a problem. The landing of man on the moon, took less than a decade, and we haven't been back in 45 years. For the last decade the US couldn't even get to the International Space Station, we have to have our astronauts hitch a ride on a Russian rocket.

      Finally, would the climate change solution would entail is a result where everyone would be controlled by their government. And the world countries would have no borders, and it would be a global version of the Bernie Sander socialism for America.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida

      I am sure there are those government funded projects here and in other countries that have prepared for a doomsday scenario.

      I am also sure that it is not meant to save 99% of us. No rational government would try to save everyone from a global disaster, it would be pointless.

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Haha Ken I agree. When I reread that I thought it rather comic, though I'm not a depressed robot!! The thing is, is that I get exasperated at society that thinks life as we know it will carry on, endless expansion and never ending resources. Here in the UK we're still building on flood plains, despite knowing what's coming - and despite floods writing people's homes off. I just think we could be doing more to prepare and think about infrastructure a little more! Not pretend that it's going to be business as usual.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida


      Your post is so Marvin-esqe (Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy) that it is noteworthy in that you took the time to type it.

      We are all doomed, it is all pointless, why bother...

    • Electro-Denizen profile image


      4 years ago from UK

      @CHRIS57 I wish I could share your optimism. But looking at the data: racing CO2 levels coupled with increased solar output, coupled with numerous CO2 feedback effects (without mentioning the awakening methane giant from the melting permafrost), we're truly headed into unchartered territory. I've always been bemused by our human inclination to think the bad stuff won't happen to us. We all feel exempt in some sense, whether it be old age or disease and ultimately death, until it comes to us, that is. Humanity has been on the earth for the blink of an eye, in geological time. Our species diversity today is less than 10% compared to all species that came before humanity's time, and this 90% all became extinct. I read somewhere that extinction is the norm, it absolutely is, looking at the data. Why should humans be different? We've always tended to imagine ourselves to be 'better than' and suffered a sort of superiority complex, which is unwittingly written into sense of self identity, race and religion. Perhaps we've become this way, faced with the hard odds of survival in a tough world. After all, the risk taker has genetically been the one that favored the odds of survival (think young guys doing crazy things). So what is the likelihood of our current way of life not being completely re-arranged, with massive crop failures, rising sea levels and weather extremes? Not likely. Our way of life will soon be removed but we think it won't. Techno survivalists can increase their chance of survival, but in a difficult world. I think it's a fallacy that to think that our modern convenient life will go on, and that a massive die off won't ensue. Of course it will. It always has.... We're already in the 6th extinction, looking at background rates of creature disappearance. But life goes on, until suddenly it doesn't. I'm guessing that life feels really normal, until suddenly it doesn't anymore. On that cheery note, have a nice day!!

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Ken's efforts here have not earned him much support. Only 6 indviduals have bothered to vote in that very slanted survey. 6 people and 50% (3, for those who are poor at arithmetic), have said they don't agree with climate change. Probably based upon their "beliefs" and not in any way honestly to do with scientific inquiry.

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Much of what you have said here I agree with, but always open to other scientific points of view, provided they are well thought out.

      My own focus right now is on "grass-roots" technology here in India. But with similar objectives.

    • CHRIS57 profile image


      4 years ago from Northern Germany

      Not many new arguments - if i may say. To be honest, the whole struggle about man made or natural Climate change is not important.

      But it is important that Climate Change is real. Today it is already impacting every day life. Do you think that mankind and our way of life is in danger?

      Answer: It is not. People, individuals, have always been creative and innovative enough to overcome these problems... but there is a little "if" to it. Only if people start to leave behind any discussion on "man made" or "Climate Change Hoax" and get to work, then there is nothing to worry about.

      Getting to work means reducing fossile energy consumption, creating new technologies to reduce energy consumption as whole, protect land and people from the turmoils of our changing climate.

      Guess what: This will create new industries, new opportunities. Every step forward in human development was initiated by changes. Call some of those changes and steps forward revolutions, industrial revolutions.

      Don´t neglect the Climate changes, they are not bad at all. If you do nothing though, this will seriously damage the economy, prosperity and the way of life of all.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida


      Just one other thing that I do not believe we touched on, China and India were essentially exempt from the CO2 penalties and reductions set in the Paris Agreement... in other words China, the world's worst producer of emissions, almost double what America produces, was exempt from paying penalties or changing policy... all they did was 'promise' to try harder.

      The article noted below has some interesting charts that show this:

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida

      I laugh, but sadly that is probably a not so far fetched outcome.

      I really do not know if CO2 created by humans has as much to do with it as many want to believe, but you got it, it is no longer the major issue... and it no longer matters whether we stop creating CO2 tomorrow or not.

      Not that we would. So that too is moot. Hence why I say the Paris Accords is a faux, and the idea that 'climate change' can be altered through a handful of regulations and new taxations is a hoax.

      And so... very likely according to some... history repeats, and maybe ten thousand years from now, those people look at what we left behind like we look at Megalithic Cusco Peru, Gobekli Tepe, Baalbek and the most ancient parts of Egypt.

      But rather than saying there were aliens, or gods, how about, man evolved and created a great civilization with abilities we can't fully understand today, and then, disaster struck? Maybe self created?

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      ok. So our humanoid industrial revolution has started the rapid global warming, with CO2.

      That has been the trigger for arctic release of methane from the hitherto frozen tundra.

      And there is no hope of us humans managing to turn that around and save us from destruction.

      Better get ready. Learn to light a fire without a petrol lighter or matches. Learn to kill one of those cows, skin it, butcher it and eat it.

      Back to ground zero. Start all over again and spend the next 10,000 years trying to discover who the idiots were that left the world in such a mess.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida

      There are solutions, none of which would be accepted by the public if known.

      I do believe there are minds at MIT and elsewhere far smarter than my own that have come up with solutions for how life and mankind will survive anything short of total global destruction.

      That won't do much good for the 99.8% of the people and the 89% of all animal life that would get wiped out. But there are remote places where every seed, egg, and sperm of every species have been collected along with plenty of supplies and equipment for a small amount of people to survive years in isolation if necessary.

      Kind of a Noah's Ark story all ready to go should another 40 days and 40 nights event occur.

      How is that kind of disaster avoided?

      Honestly, only by a reduction in global population rather than the unchecked growth we have seen, the globe can no longer support the amount of people and the rate of population growth.

      In addition we would have to stop using almost all plastics before the Ocean's become so polluted they can no longer support non-toxic life (or any life). Not in five years... yesterday.

      And we would have to stop using Nuclear Power plants, especially those that are past the half century mark and are just waiting for disaster to hit.

      I understand your point about CO, but the truth is it is not near the threat believed without Methane in the atmosphere as well.

      Methane (CH4) is over twenty times more powerful, over a 100-year period, per molecule, than is carbon dioxide (CO2). Or, put another way, methane is more effectual than carbon dioxide at absorbing infrared radiation emitted from the earth’s surface and preventing it from escaping into space. Methane, during its first few years upon entering the atmosphere, is 100 times as powerful as an equal weight of CO2.

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Ok, back to the discussion.

      ".....the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

      Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year). "

      Yes, I have no quarrel with that either. My figures previously concerning jet fuel and urban peak hour traffic are no less significant in the bigger picture. So I don't see it as an either/or situation. Both the propensity for eating large amounts of meat and dairy foods, and our habitual use of the motor vehicle, need to be addressed with lots more technological solutions.

      The actual quantities of meat eaten in our "western" diet is obviously to blame. A moderation of consumption would help enormously. As a moderation of private vehicle use could also serve the environment.

      But I stick to my guns about those aircraft figures. 502 million tons of fossil fuel being burned per year, amounts to at least those few billion animals belching forth wind, even if the methane out-flanks CO² as a greenhouse gas.

      But, as you said, who is going to the inconvenience of not using their automobile? That is what we all need to do if the calamity facing this world is to be avoided. I can't see the solution happening, can you? So what can be done?

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida

      Alan, I will understand any view, if they are backed up by conclusive and trustworthy facts, and not just opinion.

      I have given links above to facts (and opinions) not my own, you have given nothing but conceit and condemnation in your replies, however cleverly concealed you may believe it to be.

      As to that poorly written paragraph, the intent was not to call you an idiot, but I can see where it could be construed that was the intent, if you re-read it, you can also discern its true meaning, I have no doubt.

      The only narrow mind in this discussion between the two of us, is the one that has shown only disdain, and dismissal from his opening post, to his last.

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Well Sir.... if your own mind is made up and you cannot or will not accept or understand the points of view other people might have, there really is no further discussion. Right?

      And since you have given me a label based on your narrow mindedness, I wonder what sort of career you led in your Armed Forces.

      But then who am I to question? You think I'm an idiot! Maybe you have shares in the oil industry.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida


      The threat is from Methane, not CO2/Carbon.

      If we weren't producing tens of millions of cattle a year for slaughter, this would help more than all the efforts to curb our CO emissions.

      That aside, it is the huge sums of methane being released from the North Pole right now that will end life as we know it, which is again, not going to be effected by our efforts to curb CO emissions.

      I am not an expert, but I have read and listened to experts, nothing the Paris Accords was going to enact was going to help the 'Global Warming' situation, it was a form of wealth transfer from Western Nations to non-Western nations, it was a new way of taxing people, trickle down taxation, but still taxation as the costs of energy and fuel would go up in North America and Europe.

      Of course, nothing I type is going to convince anyone of that who has already determined they know everything they need to know about the situation, and who-ever doesn't agree with their point of view is an idiot... and you would certainly fit that classification in my book.

      Now... since we all know we aren't going to ground the millions of flights, and we aren't going to turn off our cars and trucks, and we aren't going to shut down all the coal burning power plants in China, etc. etc. ... tell me, what exactly were the Paris Accords going to accomplish other than hitting those that already can't afford to pay their bills, with more taxes?

    • profile image


      4 years ago

      Interesting article yes but, pardon me saying so, you seem to have a desire to avoid the obvious. Sure, the huge number of cattle around the world do produce a lot of methane, (from the front, not the arse-end, by the way). But the emissions caused by human activity are hugely greater than those of cattle.

      How many airplanes take off each hour on average in the world?

      On average, apparently, 8,000 to 12,000 per hour.

      Planes Utilize Most Fuel During Takeoff... something like the equivalent of a back yard swimming pool, per take off. Kerosene. Just imagine how many homes that could heat!

      The world's airlines use some 205 million tons of aviation fuel (kerosene) each year, producing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and methane.

      Then we could look at every city in every country in the world, every day, and assess peak hour traffic....and how much fuel is being used.

      With your educated background and your administrative experience I am sure you can visualise the amount of heat energy and gaseous emissions entering our atmosphere.

      Any denial of the human influence upon global warming can only come from a convenient and deliberate ignorance.

      Please tell us why you are in denial.

    • Ken Burgess profile imageAUTHOR

      Ken Burgess 

      4 years ago from Florida


      But notice I wrote that they are not focusing on the real problems or the real issues. Just like politicians in D.C. don't focus on finding real solutions. Why... because they are in the pockets of those trillion dollar corporations and conglomerations.

      Why won't we focus on beef, and meet in general, limiting it in our diets?

      It would be healthy for us to do so. It would lead to a better environment, more plants less animals, etc.

      But we will never get there because of the industry built up around it, the restaurants, the lobbyists, etc.

      Same for this effort on Climate change... politics... power... control, that is what it is really about, wrapped up in a 'cause' people can get behind.

      Take our fight against coal in America... yep, were burning a lot less coal... do you know where it is going now?

      China, they are the ones burning it instead of us. But it is still one world, still one atmosphere, still pollution that makes its way all the way back to America. So we did nothing but make our own energy costs go up, while shipping our resources over to China.

      And that was all planned out, well over a decade ago. You didn't know that. You weren't told that. But that was decided upon years before it began.

      You have been lied to about so much, for so long... or kept in the dark for so long. Forget conspiracy theory... the tin foil hat types keep being proven right time and again, people just don't want to accept it. Because if they do, they have to accept the fact that their leaders don't care about them, are working against their best interests, and are lying to them 24x7 and that makes for a tough reality for most to live in or accept.

    • Angel Guzman profile image

      Angel Guzman 

      4 years ago from Joliet, Illinois

      Climate change is happening now all around us. I feel there is hope to lessen the blow but I'm very concerned about our food supply becoming nonexistent.

    • Electro-Denizen profile image


      4 years ago from UK

      I agree that the mass rearing and slaughter of cattle, is one of the main problems facing us. It's even more disturbing when one realizes that there's no point to it whatsoever, apart to feed people's social habits. On the other hand, I have to disagree that global warming is a hoax. There are so many varieties of the hoax mentality, which always reminds me that our realities are entirely based on the people we know and what we read. There is the illuminati/control one (which perhaps you touch on in this article); there is the Russia v. USA one (creating the global warming hoax to damage US industry) and other less significant ones. But the fact is, is that if it was a hoax, thousands of scientists worldwide who don't even know each other, across decades, would have somehow to agree to present 'false' information, which is not possible. I've been reading widely on this issue for a while, and your figure off CO2 being much higher 11,000 years ago... not sure which ice core samples that data came from! So my view is that while it's true climate change has happened before, the acceleration created by human activity, is unprecedented. And while it's true that some people do stand to gain by introducing carbon emission taxes, this short term gain is rather pointless. Looking at the dying off rates, daily, of small creatures we don't even think about in our daily lives, we're already within the 6th great extinction. Only from that perspective do I think trying to stop global change is a sham. From that perspective, lunatic Trump's 'party on' mentality does make sense, even if it's a Titanic 'this ship can't sink' one! Anyway, interesting article.

    • fpherj48 profile image


      4 years ago from Carson City

      Ken...wonderful article and thank you for the excellent education. I need to KNOW a lot of this info since I have not spent time looking into all of this particular "Hullabaloo" on my own. I tend to pay more attention and do more research on several other issues facing our country for which I have major concern.

      At this point in time, frankly, I'm avoiding a lot. Too much is too much! I needed a break~as so many people I know have recently come up for air.

      Have never seen the likes of what Americans are saying, doing and instigating during these turbulent times. I almost can't ( or rather, don't dare) discuss much with anyone. Never know when someone will lash out, bite your head off or you know, overturn your vehicle and light it on fire..........the American terrorists. Good grief.

      Great article once again, Ken. Peace, Paula


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)