27 Questions for “Climate Change” Alarmists

The sure sign of a valid scientific theory is that its proponents welcome questions about it.

Oct 28, 2022

Are we living in an age actuated by science? Or in one ruled by authority & dogmas that cannot be questioned?

Here is how legitimate science works: a theory is proposed to explain an observed set of facts. This theory is then subjected to systematic questioning in an attempt to invalidate it. These questions are, in turn, “answered” by the proponents of the theory via experiment, research/information, and formal reasoning.

And it is through this question & answer dynamic—whether over a period of years, decades or centuries—that all good scientific theories are corroborated and strengthened.

It’s also how weak theories are found to be wanting; and, if irredeemably flawed, discarded.

But if we’re not allowed to question a theory—if questions and challenges are deemed irrelevant because the “science” is said to be “settled”—then we’re no longer in the realm of science, but in the realm of authority and ersatz religion: believe this on our say-so.

In other words, we’re in the realm of SCIENCE™©

Indeed, you have an obligation to allow your scientific theories to be challenged. Especially if you’re proposing to change the entire world on the basis of them.

How is it possible that so many in our midst have seemingly forgotten how genuine science actually works? Especially in an age that prides (nay, deludes?) itself on being deeply “science”-driven?

Perhaps the flood of pseudo-science during the past few decades has dulled our intellects to the difference between appeals to reason/evidence and appeals to authority?

Perhaps we have stopped asking questions and demanding answers?

We ought to imitate children in this respect, who persist in asking disarmingly simple and even disconcerting questions. Of course, this pestering can be unnerving to some adults, who prefer that their say-so be sacrosanct from questioning.

Oddly enough, this reticence to field challenges seems particularly evident among contemporary “scientists”—who, after all, ought to relish questions, no?

The Power of Questions & String Theory

About a decade ago, I had dinner with a world-renowned theorist of String Theory at the Lake of the Clouds hut set high in the White Mountains of New England. He had been hiking with my brother; and unbeknown to my brother or myself, we happened to be staying in “Lakes” on the same night. So there we found ourselves, all three of us, with some basic food and a few bottles of wine, at a common dinner table.

As we settled into dinner, and after some general conversation, I expressed a something-more-than-passing interest in String Theory, to which my brother’s guest responded favorably. So by way of making conversation, I posed a few very simple questions to him. And he could not answer my questions; not even to his own satisfaction. And in truth, he was actually a bit throttled by them.

Later that night, he was on his bed, gazing into the towering darkness of the cold bunk room; and in an exasperated tone he said: “Maybe you’re right. But it would undermine the whole thing. Oh my God...” He then said something about his wife and turned over.

Far more was at stake than his own world. Here is a short and partial list: vast sums of money, eons of institutional time, oodles of prestige/status, not to mention the integrity of innumerable puffed-up egos. All this and much more (entire industries, for example, in the case of Climate Change) rests upon the continued “validity” of these “theories.”

I don’t blame his exasperation. This was his life’s work after all. In a way, I felt a bit sorry for him. Then again, whoever you are, it is always worthwhile to ask yourself and others simple questions from time to time about the things and propositions you and others hold to be true.

Indeed, you have an obligation to allow your scientific theories to be challenged. Especially if you’re proposing to change the entire world on the basis of them.

All that to say: I have a few simple questions for the Climate Change alarmists. And sometimes the simplist questions are the hardest to answer. And for that reason the most important to ask.

27 Questions for the “Climate Change” Alarmists in Our Midst

(NB. What was once called “Global Warming,” and then “Climate Change,” many now call “Climate Instability.” However, let’s put the constantly shifting nomenclature aside for now. Let’s call it Climate Change; and by this we mean Anthropogenic Climate Change: that the actions of human beings are catastrophically changing the climate of planet earth.)

We have been emerging from the “Little Ice Age” during the past couple hundred years or so. If we have, in fact, been experiencing a warming trend during this same time period, why in heaven’s name should this surprise you?

So here are my questions:

Since you are the one proposing to change the entire world on the basis of the theory of Climate Change, the onus is on you to provide irrefutable evidence—that is, corroborated evidence that has survived a full and comprehensive vetting process—in support of this theory. And not on me or anyone else to disprove it. And the evidence would need to demonstrate not merely that the climate is changing—after all, that has always been true—but that the changes: 1. are unusual and outside of normal deviations; 2. are not sustainable because catastrophically damaging; and most especially: 3. are due to human activity, especially fossil fuel use. So, pray tell, where is this “overwhelming evidence?” Impossible, you say, to demonstrate all this with certainty? I think so too. But it’s your theory, not mine.
- (NB: If you respond with a chart/graph simply showing warming or instability trends in temperature over the past 100 years or so—or a charts/graphs (or worse, “models”) from the IPCC that have only been “vetted” by Climate Change acolytes—you’re simply confirming your ignorance about the theory you claim to believe, or how legitimate science works.)
How do you determine the average temperature of the entire earth? What does that even mean? Up to what level in the atmosphere? Down to the surface of the ocean and earth? Or below?
- How do you know your measurements or your “averages” are accurate? Compared to what? Even now, let alone for thousands of years past?
  Via some proxy, you say? How do we know the proxy is accurate? Really? Against what independent variable?
- Come to think of it: how exactly do you determine the average temperature of even a single, small room in a house? And again, what does that even mean?
- What is temperature gradient? With respect to a room? Or the entire planet? What does that mean about our ability to measure the average temperature of the entire earth, or changes therein? How about hundreds if not thousands of years ago? How about predicting “average temperatures” decades if not centuries hence?
Are models reality? Is it valid to treat a model’s output as evidence? What is the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness? Who is Alfred North Whitehead and what did he say about the widespread confusion wrought by this logical fallacy?
What exactly is “settled science”? How much of science can be said to be truly “settled,” beyond some very basic facts, such as the boiling point of water given such and such conditions? Is such truly settled science still researched? Do we still research, for example, the boiling point of water? Why then are we still pouring billions of dollars into Climate Change research if the science is actually, as you say, “settled”?
- Oh, it isn’t “settled”? I see. So why in God’s name are we coercively remolding, if not forcibly revolutionizing, the entire world on the basis of it?
Is science about “consensus”? (Is “consensus” even remotely a scientific concept? Since when does any truth depend upon “consensus”?) If not, why do you keep referencing it? Isn’t the term “consensus”—much like “settled science”—simply marketing language? Instead of these manipulative and misleading phrases, why not just provide the evidence asked for in Question #1?
Where do you get this claim of “consensus” from anyway? Did someone conduct a poll? Was it scientifically performed? Where is it? Because as far as I know, no one has ever produced anything in support of this alleged “consensus.” (NB: counting only those who join professional Climate Change societies/bodies, and/or who publish in their journals, is simply laughable; and really just further calls into question the scientific credibility of those who make this claim.)
Is science historically moved "forward" by people who conform to the “consensus”? Or by skeptics who question the groupthink? Who is Dr. Joseph Lister? Should he have conformed to the “consensus” and “settled science” in the nineteenth century? The “consensus”-mongers ridiculed him, ejected him professional societies, and so on (sound familiar?) But Dr. Lister was right; and the “settled science” was dead wrong, and with horrific and fatal consequences. How often is this pattern repeated in history?
Whether you realize it or not, the theory of Climate Change necessarily presupposes a climate norm. Is there some sort of normal “climate” of the earth? What makes you think so? How did you arrive at this? How do you know what “normal” is? Is there an identifiable period in geological history where the climate wasn’t changing? If so, would do we even mean by that? And when might that be? Are overall trends—warming and cooling trends, and even periods of relative unstable weather—unusual in geological history?
The planet has always undergone overall average temperature changes. According to your own ice core data from Greenland, these changes have been more rapid and larger than what you suggest we see in recent history. Care to explain this? Is your data wrong? Or is your theory flawed?
Moreover, these changes appear to be completely independent of CO2 levels. Did the nature of CO2 change? Is this where you change the subject to polar bears?
If we cannot find a linkage between CO2 and temperature in data going back millions of years, how can we confidently assert that there is one now?
The question isn’t really why we’ve had climate change over the past 100 years, is it? The real question is this: “why has the climate over the past 10,000 years been relatively stable in comparison with millions of years prior?” Can you answer this? Doesn’t this fact alone cause you to question your theory? If not, why not?
Fossil records show that there were tropical plants in Greenland millions of years ago. Was that due to human activity or fossil fuel use? Natural causes, you say? Really? No way. Okay, fair enough: why were there vineyards all over southern England in the Middle Ages? (Chaucer wrote about them. Was Chaucer an alt-right operator sent from the future to play havoc with your theory?) Was this apparent warming trend caused by human activity or fossil fuel use? Natural causes, you say? Really? No way! What about all those other warming trends (prior to the 20th century, of course)? Natural causes too? No. Friggen. Way.
- Are “natural causes” of Climate Change disappearing just as the seasonal flu is magically disappearing through the dictates of SCIENCE™©?
We have been emerging from the “Little Ice Age” during the past couple hundred years or so. If we have, in fact, been experiencing a warming trend during this same time period, why in heaven’s name should this surprise you?
If we can’t be certain about fractions of degrees over the past 50 years—as evidenced in your own community discussions—how can we be sure about about relatively small, or even fractional, changes in temperatures a million years ago?
Why is it anti-science to question conclusions, even if you think those conclusion are well-supported by data? Why is is pro-science to advocate a position that hasn’t been arrived at by scientific methods? Is dogma science? Is questioning dogma anti-science?
According to Herr Klaus Schwab, Climate Change theory makes the “Great Reset” necessary. If there’s no climate crisis, does that mean this entire charade is no longer necessary?
Is it a coincidence that every “crisis” you’re hyperventilating about also happens to be trumpeted in the media 24/7? Or that, oddly enough, every one of these crises somehow seem to require the exact same thing: that the entire world’s population to relinquish their freedoms, their wealth and even their lives, and accept an emerging global, technocratic fascism? One that is run by a tiny minority who won’t have to give up those things? When a pattern is repeated over and over again, do we still call it coincidence?
Where does most electric "energy" ultimately come from? (And while we’re at it: exactly how much fossil fuel goes into creating, from start to finish, windmills and solar panels? Do they generate enough “energy” even to recoup that initial expenditure of fossil fuel?)
If our electric infrastructure cannot even handle air conditioners during the summer months, how will they handle widespread use of electric cars? Even with a relatively low percent of electric ownership, so-called “Flex Alerts”—advising citizens not to charge their electric vehicles for days at a time—are already becoming common during heat waves in California. Or is that rather the point?
If the seas are rising, or will rise, why is it that so many hysterical “climate change alarmists” either own or have recently purchased oceanfront property? (Extra credit: where do they get all that money? Hint #1: What do all those Climate Change taxes go? Who manages these funds? Where is the formal accounting?)
If fossil fuel is causing climate change, why does Al Gore—and so many other hysterical climate change enthusiasts—live in a truly massive house that uses 20 times the power than the average house? Why do the proponents of Climate Change fly on private jets, which are far worse than commercial airliners in terms of fossil fuel use? Why don’t they Zoom, as do the peasants?
Suppose a budding scientist wanted to obtain a higher education in the fields that surround climate "science.” If he or she were a Climate Change skeptic, or even neutral—which is to say, dispassionate and scientifically-minded—and refused to repeat the required cult words, how well would such a person fare? At getting into school? At coming to know the "right" professors? At securing positions and grants? Do you suppose this has an effect on the generation of “evidence”? Or “consensus”? Or what appears to you to be “settled science”?
If fossil fuel should be banned because it’s involved in the creation of carbon dioxide gas, shouldn’t we ban Dihydrogen Monoxide too? After all, Dihydrogen Monoxide is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about fully half of earth’s greenhouse effect.1
Is carbon dioxide a normal and even vital part of the earth’s environment? Trees depend upon carbon dioxide to flourish, no? Why do you hate trees so much? Isn’t that how oxygen is generated? Don’t human beings depend upon oxygen? Why do you hate humans so much? (Come to think of it, what makes you think the earth is overpopulated?)
It’s a fact that fraud in SCIENCE™© exists. Indeed, it seems increasingly common. So why on earth should anyone simply “trust the SCIENCE™©”?
Finally, do these three realities at all give you pause? If not, why not?
1. Does it bother you that the top proponents and activists of the Climate Change theory sometimes say the quiet part loud and describe the modeling/science as more or less a “useful fiction” to manipulate the population? And, moreover, that they explicitly link the need for this “useful fiction” to bring about their projected 80-90% population reduction? If this doesn’t bother you, why not?
2. Does it bother you that for at least fifty years, SCIENCE™© has made innumerable prognostications about eventualities that never materialized? Are you expecting them to be right some day? Rather like a broken clock? If this does not give you pause, why not?
3. Does it bother you that we have been deploying geo-engineering and weather-modifying technology on a large-scale basis at least since WWII? (These were military weapons. Seeding clouds, etc. Do you suppose they’ve since gotten better at doing so? With more powerful and harder to detect technologies?) Don’t believe me? It’s right out in the open for you to see. For example, the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has been tracking weather modification projects for more than 50 years. NASA has been planning and managing a weather modification program at least since 1966. And here’s a comprehensive resource that documents what is out in the open for all of us to know. And here’s an interesting and recent Tessa Lena piece on the overall topic (she used to be a skeptic). All this doesn’t give you pause either? Why not?

Here’s how such questions will be “answered”

Of course, anyone who has the temerity to challenge Climate Change “science” with the above and other questions will be met with a flurry of illogical and often downright non-sequitur-ish if not outright rude dismissals. Not only from amateurs but from “experts,” and especially those posing as experts. Because that is what science-minded people do: dismiss questions. (That last bit was sarcasm.)

Ironically, asking critical questions and even full-scale criticism — the essence of the scientific methodology — is now called “science denial.” And just as bizarre: whatever does not conform to the narrative is “misinformation.” (So voilà, all the “experts” who conform to the narrative agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real.) This fabrication of “consensus”— including the silencing of anyone outside of it — occurs at the highest levels of SCIENCE™©.

You will also be met with a blizzard of stock-responses that they repeat in verbatim language. They will breezily refer to the “undeniable reality of climate change” or “you can no longer deny” or “the science is settled…” or the “consensus of scientists”….

….none of which are actual arguments. But bizarrely, they are repeated as if they are. And by people who evidently understand very little about science and even less about logic.

Or they might refer to the “overwhelming evidence” and then promptly trot out data that allegedly suggests that temperatures have been warming. And many fall for this ruse. And it is a ruse because it really doesn’t show what they think it shows (see Question #1). Whether the ruse is intentional or not is hard to say; and really, I’m not sure which is worse.

And similar to the claim that the mRNA “vaccines” have been demonstrated to be “safe & effective,” their bruskness is a way of hiding the truth: that they really and simply believe Climate Change to be real; and while they really have no genuine evidence for it, they want you to believe it too.

And they will likely refer you to a “denier” and append various substantives, such as “science,” in order to render you into a kind of heretic.

Welcome to the CCC: the Climate Change Cult

The below photo is from Guardian Magazine’s Saturday (25 September 2021). I mentioned Greta before in my piece What is a Cult? What is Fascism? in the section on the global cult. As I said then, “she” is a member of a mid-level cult family, and….

…they form a kind of a “religion” that binds them together to work towards a common end; and this “religion” also binds them to silence. They communicate out in the open, among themselves and even directly to the mostly uncomprehending public, but in a “language” that the general population does not yet see. But once you see it, you cannot “unsee” it.

Notice the symbolism that is repeated over and over in different ways in front of a mostly uncomprehending public: the one-eye symbolism (the “all seeing eye”) and the gender-neutral facial features. Here, the face is partly covered in a black substance that is dual-referencing. Oil is, of course, the surface reference; but the other reference is to graphene oxide, which is deeply interfused with the entire Transhumanist movement.

The Climate Change Cult isn’t about the planet. It’s about mind control, and thereby control of the resources and industries of the planet.

Welcome to the CCC, the Climate Change Cult: an ersatz religion that masquerades under the mantle of science, complete with High Priests in robes and their fawning acolytes:

Demanding unquestioned obedience to their proclamations,
Censoring and silencing questions and challenges,
Branding “unbelievers” as heretical deniers.

Sound familiar? Does it remind you of what we have witnessed the past three years: pcr tests, masks, lockdowns, social distancing, “vaccines” - all cultish ritualistic, behaviors enforced on a planetary scale, none of which have anything at all to do with actual health or science.

It’s almost as if a planetary SCIENCE™© cabal has emerged to seize control of the world’s political structures and people in order to cull and genocide a portion of the population.

And, unfortunately, half the population doesn’t seem to notice. They even seem to enjoy it. Somehow (exactly how escapes me) all this gives meaning to their lives. They even seem to take pride in their conformity.

The Climate Change Cult and the Covid Cult—like all the others in our midst, such as the Woke Cult—have a highly-focused purpose: they create realities in the minds of the people that serve to engineer a political outcome: total control over the population on a planetary scale via a fascist, technocratic NWO.