ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Environment & Green Issues

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

Updated on June 25, 2017

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.

Could this be considered another form of globalism, control at the expense of nationalistic independence and individual rights? Perhaps.

If these Accords and Regulations were to target the real problems... Methane gas created by the meat industry, plastic rising to toxic levels in the oceans and becoming invasive in all our food sources emanating from the oceans, 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 to its tilt to shifts in the continents to what life forms are predominant in the oceans, etc. etc. but there are plenty 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 some 30+ feet.

Below is a link to a must read 'article' that discusses the global 'flood' that occurred some 11,000+/- years ago for those who are interested in such information:

http://grahamhancock.com/jayem1/

And here is a video that discusses the event (not related to the article above):

Its a great video full of facts, except I don't agree with his meteor theory, when you collect evidence of carbon dioxide levels found in the air during that time, or consider the volcanic hotbed that the entire region known as 'Yellowstone Park' is known for, 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 there could be plenty of other explanations for what clearly was a flood of such enormous magnitude that it carved its way through half the continent leaving evidence as shown above, and such as the Grand Canyon.

Perhaps what caused it was 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'?

That is being debated by those more interested in historical accuracies than myself. But that seems 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 cows, and the meat industry, more than man's carbon footprint. 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 causes 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

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Ken Burgess profile image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 11 days 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

      Electro-Denizen 12 days 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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 12 days ago from Florida

      Charles,

      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

      Charles 2 weeks ago from Wales, 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!!

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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

      CHRIS57 2 weeks 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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 5 weeks ago from Florida

      Alan,

      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:

      https://hubpages.com/politics/Climate-Change-Real-...

    • Ken Burgess profile image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 8 weeks 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?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 8 weeks 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.

      http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/methane-release...

      https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/02/arctic-metha...

      https://phys.org/news/2017-06-massive-craters-meth...

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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). " http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-...

      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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 8 weeks 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.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 8 weeks ago from Florida

      Alan,

      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?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 weeks ago from Tasmania

      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 image
      Author

      Ken Burgess 3 months ago from Florida

      @Electro-Denizen 

      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 3 months 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

      Charles 3 months ago from Wales, 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

      Paula 3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      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