Or, are we willing to live forever in fear of climate issues, believing the planet to be our enemy or that we are, ourselves, a fatal factor in the planet’s balanced endurance?
There are currently two distinct and separate versions of Climate ‘Science’ floating like spectres around the boundaries of reality and impinging on how we today view our world. One version sees the world as a climate desert, wild and dangerously hot. The other as becoming again a natural and cool, fruitful garden. Only one of these versions can be true.
But can we tell the difference between the cases, to prevent ourselves from being fooled – and perhaps also to remain, ourselves, alive and well, in spite of those who seek our demise (yes, that in truth) through increasing control mechanisms, aided by their lies about the real climate situation, or, from the planet’s perceived willingness to destroy our pesky species, thus removing the cause of its own torment?
I am speaking of the ‘we’, that is, who are not among the body of science exclusivity, and over whom science continually attempts to influence aspects of life, based on our supposedly diminished ability to judge for ourselves what is right?
“Yes we can” and “Yes we are able”, I say, to do both those things.
So, first…
Can We Tell the Difference Between the Real Climate and the Fake Stuff?
Yes we can.
Lesson 1 (This may be as far as I get)
The fake climate science can easily be identified. It always wants to blame us (or a particular section of ‘us’), as high cost users and abusers of natural world services, and responsible for what we are told are all the bad things now seen happening in the world. Often it claims the world is going to get so bad that we are all going to die. Even so, it always wants us to change the way we live to ‘fight’ climate change. Wants us to do things that are not normal or natural to ‘save’ the planet. In some vain hope that it will not kill us, since we may, quite by accident (these things are never fully specified), activate some vague ‘tipping point’ which initiates a ‘runaway’ catastrophic ending to all our endeavours. If all that were based on real climate data, that would be one thing. But it is not, and there is in fact no real climate data that would support anything the ‘fakers’ claim. Their arguments are solely based on computer modelling techniques which, as we all know, can be manipulated (because it is just a way of artificially generating data) to say whatever the climate fakers want it to say. And they use their fake, generated climate data to compare against some recent, chosen, past date (often less than 150 years in the past) which has no validity in terms of overall temporal climate divergence. Other than being around the time we began messing with industrial practices – as though that might influence anything on a planetary scale.
And yet, this fake, so-called climate science, has perverted the minds of humanity for years or even for decades now. Even though it is most obviously not scientific in nature.
Here is an example of that. It is climate fakery in its purest form…
‘Science Snippets: As Overheated Ocean Continues to Warm, What Priorities Arise?’ – Guy McPherson – Nature Bats Last – May 8, 2025
Guy McPherson is, in my view, a perhaps unwitting tool of the enemies of mankind. Every claim he makes is entirely false, being based on a false paradigm. And he is one of the chief ‘we are all going to die from runaway climate chaos’ aficionados. He was also listed as among what I like to call ‘The Mad Scientists of AMEG’ (see his image at the bottom of their member images [right column of link and scroll down to view]), all of whom were also useful tools of those who would ensnare and wish to eliminate us as useless eaters. And who (AMEG members) mostly dispersed by 2020, after their dire predictions failed to materialise, but continue to work from the shadows. Some of whom, I believe, now work for the UK endeavour to promote dangerous geo-physical solutions to what is essentially a non-problem.
In the final sentence of that sample piece, McPherson writes this – “I encourage you to live with death in mind”. How encouraging. But earlier, and since he has no facts on which to base his many false assertions, he bases his ‘Priorities’ premise on a meaningless ‘research’ project used as a mind divergence strategy. Why on Earth would genuine scientists formulate an ex-situ experiment (‘ex-situ’ meaning ‘outside of normal experience’) to prove that Botanical Gardens are struggling to cope with current climate conditions, and claiming that this is due to, and I quote:
“Our recent study, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, analysed 50 of the world’s largest living plant collections, currently growing 41% of all species in cultivation, and 500,000 individual plants. Our research spanned a century of digitised data and the findings are striking … our new research suggests that our current global system of botanic gardens is not keeping pace with the biodiversity crisis.”
Hmm… sounds very impressive, but what has the fate of trees planted in artificial settings, to do with climate reality? Or, in fact, what has it to do with his conclusions based on that, as I quote…
This is no surprise, of course. We are amid the most severe Mass Extinction Event in planetary history. Ongoing climate change is abrupt and irreversible.
…not a single word of which is true. There is nothing abrupt about climate change. These things occur over thousands or millions of years. For entities that exist on this planet over only 70-80 years, thus experiencing only the almost stationary movement of a fraction of a moment of even the most basic cycles of that immense natural rhythm, which in most cases is not disrupted by some massive cosmic near collision, that is understandably not well understood. The Dinosaurs were in a Mass Extinction Event. We are not. And as for ‘irreversible’, climate is largely based on natural cycles through time. You only have to be capable of waiting (none of us qualify for that) long enough for something to be either reversed or repeated, ad infinitum. It is all sciencey-sounding but nonsensical gobbledegook.
I’m ending this here, otherwise I will just keep adding more and more. You get the picture I hope.
And then, in complete contrast…
Do we possess the ability to judge for ourselves what is right?
Yes, we are able.
If we are given the right information to enable us to do so, rather than the confused and false messaging of current climate theory.
OK, so, we have dismissed the study of botanical gardens as having no relevance to the matter. How about the study of Ice (you know, the cold, hard, stuff which is one of the natural states of water)? That seems to fit.
I do my best to keep folk abreast of changes in the Arctic Ocean sea ice, although I am admittedly an amateur interpreter of these things, but I do base my conclusions on real and relevant data. But here (below) is some of the latest, real scientific study (not play science).
All of which is based on the question, ‘Hey, if oceans are really and dangerously warming, shouldn’t that translate to there being less ice?’. A very reasonable question. And it is true that the Arctic has been losing (but also found again – it’s an annual event) over a million Km2 of sea ice per decade, over the last two decades. But both my amateur findings and the latest study below, both show that this is being turned around now – the ice-melting phase is no longer advancing. Surprise, surprise! Well it is not so much a surprise when you consider the overall ‘essential’ background to current climate conditions. But, of course, such thought is not in vogue just now. Science prefers to mess around with artificial gardens.
When you do actually take a look at actual climate conditions – and it is not that hard to find, if you poke around a bit – you will quickly realise that global warming is a hoax. The planet is in a state of long-term (tens of millions of years) cooling, and is in fact almost at an equal low point in its normal range of temperature movements to the very lowest it has ever been. That range of temperature movements, both high and low, has been in unchanging effect now for at least half a billion years.
A quote from the following article sets the theme…
Recent studies shows that the Arctic and Antarctic have cooled over the past 2 decades, and that ice mass has gained in the Antarctic Wilkes Land-Queen Mary Land region.
Since this is but a common blog post, I think I can rest my case on that. What you make of it is entirely up to you. I just need to further state the following general facts…
I rarely discuss the Antarctic ice conditions, mainly because that body of ice is mostly land-based and was formed over 40 million years ago. It has never been in any danger from climate change. The Arctic ice, mostly sea based, formed only around 20 million years ago, making it much younger and also not having a firm base around which it can annually reconstruct itself (itself only a temporary problem). But it also has never been in danger from climate change. It is only when we come to realise those facts that we can form a level-headed view of climate conditions. There may come a time where that changes again (there has not always been a time of ice at the poles of our home planet), but that is so far in the future that neither we nor any of our future generations need to be concerned about it. We have to survive the next glacial period first – and many more after that. These warmer inter-glacials are few and far between. We, ourselves (modern humans), emerged only at the start of the current one – now in its final years.
Not Something Else 
Leave a comment