climatards are ruining our world

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

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

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

hypothesizing on route to improved understanding

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

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

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

why do they resort to name-calling?

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

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

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

time to get real…

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

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

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

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

now it's my turn…

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

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

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

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

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

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

sincerely georg; signature

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

side notes.

when the climate ignorant run into the history ignorant…

When a blind leads a blind, both will sooner or later end up in the ditch. Why they are blind makes no difference for the outcome, but some onlookers may nevertheless choose to waste their own and others' time on commentating and arguing back and forth about that totally unimportant factor as if it was all that mattered. Getting the blind couple out of the ditch may not be prioritized very high by anyone while the distraction is kept going.

Same thing with too many ignorants on all sides of climate change and environmental issues, as it does not take much to keep them all distracted with matters within the main matters that do not matter whatsoever, and thereby make most participants lose track of what really matters.
For instance: the CO₂ level does not matter whatsoever in itself for Earth's overall climate, but matters a whole lot for the environment. By falsly blaming rising CO₂ levels for all that some humans for whatever set of reasons find to be wrong and negative with Earth's climate, all that some other humans find to be right and positive with rising CO₂ levels for the Earth's environment is kept off the table.

Can anyone tell me what our tiny Earth's “ideal” climate and environment should be?
Is there such a thing as a “perfect” climate, that all living beings everywhere on Earth can agree on?

how bad can it be?

Better not plant halfbaked and flawed ideas among the ignorant… image text: PLEASE HELP.
GREENHOUSE GASES
CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
DESTROY A GREENHOUSE TODAY. … as they may take such ideas, including jokes, literally, and act on them.

“Greenhouse gases” are aptly named in the sense that increased concentrations in the air of these gases do increase growth in all plants on Earth. Other interpretations are meaningless.
The optimal concentration of each type of these greenhouse gases that each type of plant can turn into increased growth and other qualities, vary quite a bit. However, the increased amounts of greenhouse gases measured in the Earth's atmosphere in later years, are not proven to have had significant effects – negative or positive – on overall global climate.
Therefore, no plans or methods for redusing and/or removing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or to introduce taxes/penalties for releases and uses of these gases, makes sense outside governmental and business circles where literally everything gets converted to potential and actual economical and political gains.

Serving computer generated climate prognoses must be fun… super computer served cherry-picked
biased data still can not predict weather … as one can get any results those paying for the job would like, and can in the end leave out and/or ignore all data that do not fit the political landscape.
On the other hand, when access to conclusion is closed before premises are found and investigated, the entire process gets a nonsensical shine.

The visual presentation of the case at hand, is important… … and the relative sizes, placements, and degree of detailing the various elements are presented with, can imply a lot even if no actual data are included.
Important elements can be visually downgraded to appear unimportant, and unimportant elements can be visually upgraded to appear important, and not a single word or bit of data has to be included to confirm or correct the visual impression.

All too often what some regard as troublesome weather patterns, are presented as being caused by “anthropogenic climate changes”. That despite the fact that these more rare but otherwise quite natural and normal weather phenomenons, have been repeatedly recorded and documented over such a long timespan that the word “anthropogenic” should carry no meaning even to the least informed climatard.

It is as if “anthropogenic climate changes” can be blamed for just about anything anywhere in the world, without the need for fact-checking of even the weirdest connections.
A climatard's mantra: “We are allmost entirely sure that there is too little or too much of the kind of weather we do not like, somewhere on Earth right now, because … CLIMATE‽”

Compare our present with our past in the Phanerozoic* period… CO2 vs temperature through the Phanerozoic Eon … and draw your own conclusions. The climatards will disagree with you no matter what you come up with, even if they came up with it first. So much for logic…