Thousands of truant Aussie schoolkids protesting about the Australian Govt's lack of action on misanthropic (look it up) climate change prove that brainwashing (the education system) is very successful. Like sponges they soak up the bombarding propaganda, rattling off in rote fashion everything they have been programmed with. Children lack the worldly experience to make informed expert decisions. Their behaviour is, however, a great way to measure how well the process of indoctrinating them is 'progressing'.
Some facts. First there were meteorologists, a fancy word to describe 'experts' in the 'science of weather'. Not really an exact science (like say, mathematics or physics) there was a lot of guessing and a lot of contradicting theories because nobody really understood weather enough to be able to predict it. That remains true to this day. Still, they fancy themselves as experts despite not fully understanding their area of expertise. I don't either, but I don't claim to be an expert - just an informed skeptic.
Then came climatologists. A distinction was made between short-term weather and long-term climate. Meteorologists traditionally have looked at the present reality and used this to speculate about the future - yet climate is the history of past trends.
Out of nowhere, in the 70s, 80s and 90s 'climatologists' invented themselves and decided they were experts in predicting the future (which they're not). This is not science, this is guesswork. They hardly ever get it right, unlike meteorologists that have become pretty good at forecasting the next 24 hours of weather - even longer, up to 7 or 10 days or more.
Out of the 100 or so official 'Climate Models' proposed in the burgeoning computer era of fashionable 'Global Warming' in the 90s, nearly (practically) all of them were wrong. Two underestimated the amount of temperature increase and the other 98% exaggerated 'global warming) by as much as 50, 100, 200% compared to the real figures we have now, 20 years later. Clearly their models were wrong and not at all 'scientific'. Science is not based on such terrible statistical failure rates. Thank heavens.
In science, real sciences, there are Laws and there are Theories. There is no such thing as concensus in science. Things are either proven and are accepted as Laws or they're not and remain mere Theories. Concensus is a word coined by non-scientists who want to advance a hypothetical theory... even if it is an unproven fact. They can do this because, like street gangs, the biggest bunch of thugs rules.
(for instance, take the Theory of Evolution, based on 'abiogenesis' – the supposed spontaneous arising of life forms from a lifeless mixture of chemicals. Like the Missing Link, abiogenesis has never been proven or even replicated and remains nothing more than a figment of evolutionists' imaginanation – because it is necessary to account for their theory in the absence of proof. Like I said, there are Laws and there are Theories.)
(for instance, take the Theory of Evolution, based on 'abiogenesis' – the supposed spontaneous arising of life forms from a lifeless mixture of chemicals. Like the Missing Link, abiogenesis has never been proven or even replicated and remains nothing more than a figment of evolutionists' imaginanation – because it is necessary to account for their theory in the absence of proof. Like I said, there are Laws and there are Theories.)
Did you know that the Greenhouse Gas Effect has never been demonstrated? Ever? In reality? It is merely a theory. Well, yes it has been established in closed systems such as GREENHOUSES but never in an indefinitely variable open system such as the Earth's amosphere. The GGE deals specifically with the open system theory and remains that, a theory - unproven.
In an actual greenhouse, CO₂ has very little impact, the driving force being water vapour (humidity) which traps kinetic energy, thereby pushing up temperatures through the heating action of sunlight. Carbon dioxide actually plays a healthy role in vegetation growth which thrives in higher concentrations of CO₂!
Farmers use carbon dioxide generators to pump CO₂ into commercial greenhouses to increase yield and therefore profits. It is not a poisonous gas, it is not toxic, in fact without it nothing would grow! Unlike humans who breathe in oxygen and expire CO₂, plants do the opposite. No CO₂, no plant life, simple as that. It is a wholly symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life that enables both to exist, completely dependent on each other for survival.
Farmers use carbon dioxide generators to pump CO₂ into commercial greenhouses to increase yield and therefore profits. It is not a poisonous gas, it is not toxic, in fact without it nothing would grow! Unlike humans who breathe in oxygen and expire CO₂, plants do the opposite. No CO₂, no plant life, simple as that. It is a wholly symbiotic relationship between animal and plant life that enables both to exist, completely dependent on each other for survival.
Also it is worth noting that in the entire history of Planet Earth, current CO₂ percentages (3-400 parts per MILLION) are at historically low levels. Note also that most of the other planets and satellites in our Solar System are currently experiencing warming events - nothing to do with fossil fuels or CO₂ and all about Sunspot activity and orbital fluctuations. That, my friends, is real science - not the hypothetical hit-and-miss guesswork of Climatology.
Maurice Strong started it all.
Look that up,"Maurice Strong, climate fraud" (you may prefer to substitute 'activist' for fraud, crook, villian, etc... same result).
