And guess what? The next "solar maximum" -- the 12-year peak of solar activity -- might be a really big one (see also this article).
So what does that mean? It means that our little planet might be getting hit with both man-made and natural warming trends. Have you ever considered that? Have you heard any newspaper or climatologist say that?
Nothing to Worry About?
Some people argue that variation of earth's climate is natural, and has been occurring for millions of years, so we have nothing to worry about.
Well, of course that's true -- but its a dead-end argument. If a "natural variation" makes the Earth uninhabitable for humans, pets, or our favorite foods, then the fact that alot of it is caused by a "natural variation" is not very reassuring or helpful. It can be as natural as apple pie, but it may still be very deadly.
Moreover, arguing that variations in the Sun's output and other natural factors "disprove" man-made warming is like saying that studies showing smoking causes cancer disprove that car accidents can be fatal. If you smoke alot and drive recklessly, your chances of an early "retirement" quickly increase, don't they?
Should We Give Our Power Over to Big Brother?
Those like Alex Jones and Michael Rivero who downplay global warming do so because they think that it is a ruse by government elites to grab more power. While I believe global warming is real and dangerous, I also understand their point.
Most modern governments have shown themselves as not having the best interests of the people in mind. Just look at all of the false flag operations they've pulled off recently. Indeed, the powers-that-be will do just about anything to maintain power and control and to prevent real empowerment of the people of the world. Should we trust these guys? No.
Indeed, the military is now starting to say that global warming is a national security matter. That means that the government can use global warming to suspend Constitutional liberties and rights guaranteed by law, and to exercise "emergency" or "police powers".
Well-known liberal Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now." (page 388).
So the risk of an increase in fascist consolidation of power based on global warming is real. While we have to confront global warming, giving up our rights or power to do it is dangerous. We should not give into the military or Chomsky and the neoliberals' idea of letting Big Brother take care of it. Alex Jones, Michael Rivero and other conservative writers who warn against a power grab by the neoliberals based on global warming are right: we've got to protect our liberties and individual rights from those who want to use global warming as an excuse to implement totalitarian controls.
The trick is to battle global warming while maintaining our personal liberties and freedom. The task is to protect the livability of our climate in a way which does not strengthen the ruthless, dysfunctional governmental elements which are desperately looking for any excuse to consolidate their power.
1 | 2
