Contributing Writer and Co-Founder of Wake Up World
The climate change/carbon emissions debate is over. It's a redundant distraction to the broader actuality of humanity's blatantly destructive environmental practices . The question at the core of the 'climate' discussion is not if the planet is warming, or whether carbon levels are to blame, the question is whether our current way of life on planet earth is sustainable. Yet this supposedly "scientific" debate has deteriorated to narrow, ill-informed political rhetoric that keeps us debating the details, not the central issue.
Is human activity negatively affecting our planet's health, and risking humanity's future? -- Yes. Are our current practices sustainable? -- No. Are carbon emissions altering our environment such that it is causing global temperatures to increase? -- Inconsequential to the broader matter at hand.
Whatever the temperature may be, or how wild the storms, it is only a symptom of our collective disconnection from Mother Nature. Living a lifestyle that is incompatible with nature, we have allowed our atmosphere, water, soil and food supplies all to be ruined by ever-increasing environmental, industrial and agricultural poisons. And now, with unprecedented rates of disease affecting 'developed' nations, our increasingly toxic reality -- changing climate or not -- is reason enough to end this narrow 'carbon' rhetoric and initiate the many systemic reforms we know are now essential to our survival.
But the science of the 'climate change' paradigm, just like modern medicine,focusses aimlessly on the understanding the symptoms, but never the cause. It's the scientific equivalent of crapping the bed and then focusing on how best to cover up the smell". Meanwhile, it seems government officials are deliberately dragging their feet, gambling with our future to further an increasingly blatant commercial agenda.Faulty Science of 'Climate Change'
Let's get real here. The debate of 'climate change' has not been a real debate for many years now. It was and remains a political distraction, not a scientific discourse. The complex question of our changing ecosystem has been reduced in our collective language (through media and political manipulation) to a simplistic notion of "carbon emissions".
And so, while our focus remains only on carbon, no action is being taken to reform the dirty industrial systems we already know are yesterday's news. Clearly, this unending debate is staged in favor of those who profit the most, drawing focus away from the broader environmental issues -- and solutions -- and impeding necessary reform.
Our society is dependent on energy from operations plagued by gas leaks, oil spills and radioactive meltdowns; our food supply is increasingly tainted by "FDA Approved" agricultural poisons, our atmosphere is being sprayed with toxic cocktails in an arrogant attempt to control the planet's weather, while our carbon-absorbing oceans and forests are being further decimated by short-sighted commercial practice with each passing day. And what of the effects of radioactive pollution?EMF radiation? Airborne toxins from petrol technologies? Agricultural poisons in air rain and soil? And what of other factors we can't yet understand?
Only a politician or a corporate spin-doctor would argue against replacing destructive technologies like fossil fuel, poison-dependent agriculture and nuclear energy/weapons experimentation, with sustainable systems that will serve us today, and for seven generations to come.
Conveniently, the "scientists" advocating the official carbon rhetoric have ignored countless significant (but politically inconvenient) influences on our natural environment in order to reach a position of advocacy, making the worst mistake a scientist can make -- omitting to consider information that is already well known. Such information includes:
- atmospheric heavy metal and chemical spraying as part of geo-engineering/chemtrail programs
- ever-increasing levels of airborne pollution and nuclear radiation in our air and sea
- mounting waste from 'functioning' nuclear facilities. (So far nuclear science hasn't figured out how to eliminate radioactive waste material, only how to accumulate and store it for future generations to worry about)
- compromised soil and water caused by increased "fracking" (read: "blowing sh*t up underground") in local communities
- 3 years worth of radioactive waste pouring from the failed Fukushima Daiichi facility into the oceans that are home to the plants that supply two thirds of our atmosphere's oxygen
- the effect on other plant and animal life, including the collapsing bee colonies that pollenate food bearing, oxygen-creating plant life on land, and the knock on effects of their ill-health and decline on a deeply inter-connected ecosystem
- unsustainable agricultural processes, including but not limited to the heavily instituted use of the toxic pesticides (such as the RoundUp (glyphosate) poison that is central to GMO crop production) that have been linked not only to the collapse of global bee colonies but also unprecedented rates of human illness
- ever-diminishing rain forests
- the cumulative interaction of these factors in our ecosystem, and our bodies, particularly when airborne pollutants commonly associated with geo-engineering and nuclear programs (heavy metals) interact with electromagnetic radiation and HAARP
- substantial evidence that temperatures on other planets in our solar system are also rising, indicating that a warming effect on earth may be the result of sun spot activity and changes in cosmic rays interacting with the earth's atmosphere. To learn more, please read: The Climate Change Hoax.
Ignoring not one by all of these factors, the "scientists" propping up the climate/carbon debate compound the first mistake by making the second worst mistake a scientist could make: omitting the potential of other factors, known or unknown, that may influence their considerations, results and predictions of environmental changes.
Is carbon really our biggest concern? No, it's just one of our least tangible concerns -- the perfect political diversion from any discussion of tangible systemic reform. When we view this situation with our eyes wide open, suggesting that putting a price and/or "cap" on carbon is the mechanism that will "save our planet" is ridiculous. But it sure does make people feel better.Reality Check
Humanity is living an unsustainable life here on earth. Our days like today are numbered. There are countless factors that are putting our natural ecosystem under pressure, yet with public debate carefully steered by corporate-government and their media, the entire discourse of our environmental future has been co-opted; reduced to a dangerous theatre of popularist politics that is rooted in polarized, dualistic thinking -- the opposition of two competing ideas, two parties, left and right, neither one a complete solution"
Is it so? Is it not so?
Is it good? Is it bad?