What’s really going on with climate change?
What’s the real back story?
CCRG Editor’s Note:
Global Climate Change is the single most misunderstood phenomenon of the post Modern Age. Given the pervasiveness and profundity of so much misunderstanding — ABOUT EVERYTHING — that is quite the statement, yes?!
And, yet, it’s entirely true.
Now just why might that be the case?
Because we’re talking about the weather.
What, pray tell, affects human existence more than the weather?
Over millennia what was the first question asked of a foreign diplomat visiting the local kingdom from afar? “How’s the weather o’er yonder?”
When a daughter calls her mother in Ohio, what’s the first or second question they likely ask each other. That’s right, “How’s the weather there today?”
Whenever he’s Skyping with his supervisor who’s in NYC, from his office in LA, the boss never forgets to ask, “How’s the weather treatin’ ya?”
The annual picnic is planned for this weekend and everyone wants to know, “How’s the weather shaping up?”
When the father is talking by cellphone to the son who is off at college, eventually it come’s to the question “How’s the weather been there, son?”
Of course, before each and every Saturday football game, coaches and players, refs and fans alike really want to know, “WHAT’S THE WEATHER DOIN’ TODAY?”
Even da boyz who are out cruisin’ da hood, first want to know, “Hows da wetter?”
When President Putin calls President Obama, what’s the very first question Putin probably asks? That’s right, “How’s the weather in D.C. today?”
Surely you get picture by now. Down through the ages everyone always wants to know “How’s the freakin’ weather?”
What’s the point?
We’re talking about the most single most frequently asked question … IN HISTORY! Since time immemorial residents of Planet Earth have been posing this question to each other for very good reason.
Just why is that?
Because it’s very similar to asking: How’s the Universe treating you today?
Or, in olden times, it was their way of inquiring how the Supreme Being was doing. Was The Almighty happy or sad, angry or content?
Therefore, “How’s the weather doing?” really = “How’s God doing in your neck of the woods?” That’s the real question here. Is He is in a good mood today, or bad one?
In view of this new understanding there can be only one conclusion when considering the divine message that is being sent via Global Climate Change. Yes?
A variation of this theme could be stated as follows:
Is Mother Earth really satisfied with the conduct of her little earthlings? Does she approve of their behavior, both individual and collective? Wars and military conflicts do have profound effects on her as well you know.
Is Mother Nature okay with the unrelenting environmental disasters and ecological catastrophes?
In light of this very unique and unconventional line of inquiry, there is truly only one way to look at Global Climate Change. Hence, there will be only one solution to this planetary predicament. And, it has very little to do with the fixation on anthropogenic CO2 generation. Although it’s entirely true that various carbon metrics will reflect the degree to which the root causes are being addressed by humanity as a whole.
The core problems underlying Global Climate Change must first be correctly acknowledged before they can be properly remedied. Now you know why we have written the phrase — Global Climate Change — with so much emphasis … and respect.
Quite unfortunately, the current tract of humanity is practically clueless about the profound yet subtle relationships between the Creator and Creation. Many don’t even believe in a Creator so what is to prevent them from playing god themselves. That, by the way, is exactly what today’s geoengineers are doing. They are playing god by their incessant manipulation of the weather and with their climate engineering schemes.
Perhaps God does not want mankind to modify the weather in this manner. Perhaps the Creator does not look favorably on so much artificially fabricated cloud cover via the relentless chemtrail spraying. Maybe it makes it more difficult for Him to watch over us? In any event it does make the age-old question — “How the weather?” lose quite a bit of meaning. After all, the geoengineers have literally hijacked that domain so that it no longer reflects the temperament of the Most High.
Then there are those many inhabitants of the planet who don’t even observe the chemical geoengineering programs occurring right above their heads. Chemtrail and chembomb aerosols are routinely sprayed throughout the skies virtually everywhere. When this is the case, how will the world community of nations ever arrive at the unanimity of purpose necessary for them to collaborate to effectively mitigate the intensifying Global Climate Change phenomenon?
Let’s face it, most people are no longer aware of the weather from day to day. So glued are they to their smartphones that their relationship to the daily weather has been broken. Even if they were shown their own skies being sprayed in real time, they would not take notice or question the illicit chemtrail operations. Maybe they will believe a credentialed PhD who works at CERN.
At the end of the day, the most common question in modern history — How’s the weather? — has taken on great significance and new meaning. However, if the current generations don’t arrive at a high integrity answer VERY SOON, there may not be future generations to ask this question.
Climate Change Deliberation: Taking Occam’s Razor to Proxy Data
By Robert Smith
It is quite often the case that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation. The namesake for this principle comes from the English philosopher and theologian, Franciscan friar William of Ockham. It is called Occam’s razor. From various sources, Occam’s razor is a principle of parsimony or frugality used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Perhaps Occam’s razor can be appropriately applied to many of our current issues.
A particular example is the theory of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming. Our earth has gone through many periods of naturally occurring global warming and cooling. We know the Vikings colonized and established agriculture in Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, and we know of the dark days of a frozen Thames River in the U.K. during the Little Ice Age. Many eco-activists point to greenhouse gases and climate change as a reason to regulate carbon. Occam’s razor, on the other hand, would correctly inform us that natural climate change has natural causes.
As depicted in this illustration (Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 1999), in the larger scale of the earth’s history, we are at a relatively warm period. The point of this illustration is the historic nature of dramatic climate change without any influence by man, and our current position on the higher end of the historic temperature fluctuations. Based on this illustration, if past is prologue, we probably shouldn’t sell our long-johns.
The following graph depicts the Medieval Warm Period transitioning to the Little Ice Age [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990, Figure 7.1©]. This graph shows relatively recent global temperatures.
Subsequently, a multitude of proxy data and statistical manipulation transitioned this simple understanding into the infamous hockey stick theory of global temperatures. The hockey stick theory suggests the steady-state temperatures of the earth (the hockey stick handle) were triggered dramatically upward (the blade of the hockey stick) by man’s activity beginning in the 1900’s. This theory does not show a Medieval Warm Period bump or Little Ice Age trough.
The improbability of flattening the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age with proxy data and statistics speaks to the essence of Occam’s razor. The proxy data relied upon as the basis for the statistical assessment themselves have a multitude of variability, unknowns, and extraneous considerations. The use of statistics to defend a hypothesis can be subjective and several experts have critiqued how statistics were used in this case to support the hockey stick theory (see Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Mueller). The principle of Occam’s razor, however, suggests that there should be no dramatic changes in our laws and economy to respond to the relatively new allegations of man-induced global warming.
Further, many eco-activists do not contest that water vapor accounts for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, and that the man-made CO2 contribution to the earth’s total CO2 emissions is less than 4 percent. This man-made contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is not large, and may not appreciably contribute to the greenhouse effect. But, when controlling carbon seems to be the end game for some bureaucrats, any amount of man-made CO2 can be pointed to as evidence for the need for laws and regulations.
As demonstrated in this U.S. Chamber of Commerce illustration of the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, this law’s convoluted “logic” diagram is in full view. A multitude of regulations and mandates would flow from the various organs of government.
The ultimate prize to the eco-activists and their big government benefactors is the control of carbon, which would touch every aspect of our daily lives. Consequently, greenhouse gases and global climate change are of paramount importance to the eco-activist agenda. While much has been written about global climate change over many years, the basic aspects of the issue haven’t changed; we are asked to forget things we once knew and ignore the simplest hypothesis that the earth’s climate is ever changing. Occam’s razor.