The Hoax of a "climate change hoax"

The Hoax of a "climate change hoax"

Emanuel Pastreich

Independent Candidate for President

Sadly, the attempt of Homeland Security and its masters in global finance to split those demanding the rule of law along the lines of climate change policy has forced me to part ways with too many decent people in the United States who were willing to take a brave stand on 9.11, on operation Covid 19, and the privatization of the military and the Federal Reserve. I do not know what deals those denouncing climate change theories made, or perhaps what threats they were subject to, but I call for a rational scientific discussion of very real and now palpable climate change, as just about anyone can sense. I also welcome a scientific investigation of climate change, not reactionary and mindless memes.

Those who decry calls to address climate change as a fraud cite, to no end, the proclamations of the World Economic Forum, of the United Nations, of Greta Thunberg, or of Al Gore. The criticisms of these puppets of global finance, people who gain great fame (and wealth) by wrapping the bid of the powerful to employ the real threat of climate change to justify a horrific crackdown on human rights globally, are entirely justified.

But the science behind the concern about global warming is plenty real. Moreover, much of the opposition is based on the assumption that if global warming is contradictory (may include short periods when things get warmer), is long term (manifested over centuries, not months), is not just about carbon emissions (involves the destruction of land, the sea and many other factors), is justified with false arguments (about cow flatulence, about melting poles and universal rise of the oceans) then it must be false. Also, the equally dangerous threat of the collapse of biodiversity (which is not necessarily tied to carbon emissions) is ignored by these false truth seekers who seek to undermine the consensus on a response to global warming.

Real scholarship on climate change is basically ignored by these truth seekers.

Let me offer three books that I assigned in my class on climate change in 2018 which are not so easy to refute.

Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History (2014).

Christian Parenti’s “Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence” (2012)

Bill McKibben’s “Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet” (2011)

None of those leading the assault on the facts of climate change are taking on these texts.

But the most important book of all is David Ray Griffin’s “Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?” (2014) which describes quite accurately, brutally, the current situation. What is important about David Ray Griffin is that he is ALSO the author of “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé” (2012) one of the first books to expose the 9.11 incident fraud. For that reason, it is clear to anyone with eyes in his or her head that he not a paid lackey of the global elites. Needless to say, those claiming global warming is a fraud will not touch this book.   

The questioning of climate change reminds me of the argument that no viruses exist. This argument, which seems more an effort to encourage ignorance (along with similar campaigns for a flat earth and creationism science), uses the truth that scientists exaggerate the accuracy of their understanding of DNA and viruses as an excuse to say that what has been demonstrated repeatedly is simply a myth.

In these “virus myth” writings, we see Dr. Stefan Lanka cited as a source, as a scholar who thinks viruses never existed. In fact, Lanka has never made any such claim. What we need is someone who is challenging the existence of viruses to take on the fundamental texts on virology and refute them piece by piece, like Charles Darwin did for creationism and other theories in the 19^th century. I have not seen that effort undertaken anywhere.

I have not seen it done in the arguments on climate change either. I welcome a scientific questioning of climate change precisely because it has been distorted to such an extreme. To say it is a myth is damaging, but so also is claiming we will all be dead in ten years, or that the oceans are all rising rapidly on all fronts, or that the melting of the poles spells complete extinction—none of which are clear from the science. We need the truth, nothing else.

Rational Wiki offers a balanced assessment of climate change that does not fall for the bait.

I highly recommend their assessment: Rational Wiki on Climate Change