The Red Jackal

The Watermelon Cult Following

Over the past 40 years or so a new religion has emerged on the scene that began to compete with traditional religions. This new religion could almost be considered Pagan as it just focused on nature instead of morality. It was heavily promoted by the hippie/environmental movement in the 60’s and began to influence scientists at this time.

In the 70’s it was promoted that the new ice age was nigh, however that began to dissipate as temperatures began to rise in the later 80’s. In a Senate hearing an astrophysicist name James Hansen testified the new theory was Global warming and was an existential threat to mankind. To accentuate this, the windows were left open at the hearing (on a hot DC summer day) so the speaker was actually sweating while testifying. The theory was then that winters would be warmer and drier while summers become hotter.

Then in the next decade the opposite started to happen: there were colder and snowier winters which contradicted the “consensus” of the 80’s. To counteract this, instead of looking at the science, global warming was just rebranded to climate change. Climate change basically is now a never failing hypothesis: if it warmer than normal, colder than normal, drier than normal or wetter than normal it is all attributed to man made climate change.

So with all of these proclamations the science must be overwhelmingly backing this? The answer is no. Many of the studies confirming climate change are heavily cherry picked. The first study looked at research papers and snippets were taken out of context. Many of the scientists that were “quoted” as believing in man made climate change denied that this was the theme of their papers. The 97% climate consensus was very dubious.

But over time other studies tried to back up this 97% claim but were also deficient in the scientific method. Several years later, another study came out trying to show that the majority of scientists believe in man-made climate change and again was at 97%. But if you see how the survey was completed you will see a major flaw: About three thousand scientists were surveyed but only 79 responded. Out of the 79, 77 responded that climate change was man made. But right off the bat you can see the flaw that only 79 out of three thousand responded so it is much less than 97%. Many scientists are scared that if they do not agree with the climate change narrative, their careers would be ruined.

There has never been a real study about how many agree and how many disagree with man made climate change. There is some anecdotal stories such as the twenty thousand scientists that signed a statement that they did not agree that catastrophic climate change was near or caused by man. Some of the top scientists in their fields such as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen and John Christie all dispute the doomsday scenarios. Now they all might actually believe the climate is changing but dispute that man is solely responsible and debate the quality of the science that is backing this claim.

For the climate change cult, what is contributing to the earth’s destruction? Is it solar activity? No. Does it have to do with the water vapor? No. How about fluctuations in the magnetic field or magnetic north pole moving? No and No. For the doomsday cult, it is all based on CO2. These people keep saying that CO2 is a major green house gas but in fact it is just a trace gas and is measured in parts per million. Compare this to Nitrogen, which is really a major green house gas at about 80%, and you can see CO2 is not really a major green house gas at all.

So why the focus on carbon dioxide? It has been shown in studies that solar flare activity and increase water vapor have much more effect on the climate than a trace gas. However, the one thing that the greens hate more than anything is fossil fuels, so they concentrate all their efforts on them. Most of the studies focus on linkage between CO2 and ignore all other factors, though other factors have a much more effect on climate.

What about all of the studies that show these doomsday scenarios? The science has changed as now everything is run through computer models and not empirical evidence. The computer models can be easily manipulated to the programmers’ biases as well as the modeling is not there yet. When you compare empirical data to what was predicted by modeling of the same period you will see that they are quite divergent and computer models were quite far off. Once you look at just the empirical data you will see no significant changes in climate over time.

Then you always hear these studies are peer reviewed but this process has been warped as it is more pal reviewed. After the infamous hockey stick was peer reviewed and pretty much excoriated, climate scientists make sure to block any potential opponents from reviewing and give it to scientists that have the same views as them. Back in late 2000’s when the climate gate incident happened, it showed how people associated with the Climate cartel made sure to block all opponents out and make sure they were blacklisted to make sure no one would talk to them. The climate gate showed how scientists were disappointed that historical data was not matching the modeling and that one scientists’ algorithm was used to run the data to make sure to hide this decline.

Surely what was predicted decades ago has come to fruition? The answer to this is no. It was mentioned in the beginning that in the 70’s it was the upcoming ice age but that never happened. How about milder winters and hotter summers? Again, if you take a long data set, there might be a slight uptick but nothing to the effect that the world is going to end in a couple years (according to AOC). In the 90’s it was predicted that the Arctic circle would be ice from by 2013, but as with the other dire predictions this never happened. Other things such as tornado and hurricanes are amplified when happen but over the decades there is no increase in activity. In fact some of it can be misleading as the comparison is now “named” storms instead of hurricanes. Named storms can mean anything; you can have 4 named storms that never had sustained winds of greater than 50 mph, and you can have 4 named storms which could have been major hurricanes. One needs to actually dig into the data for these storms to determine if a comparison is valid.

Then you have the extremists who think they have ultimate ace up the sleeve that saying that the consensus of scientists believe in Anthropologic climate change. First of all, that is not true, the consensus does not believe this but it is a consensus of scientists they only consider as legit (believe what they do). Second, science is not done by consensus as over history the consensus has been wrong more than correct. It is through history with great scientists like Copernicus and Galileo that actually went against the consensus about the solar system and show that they were correct when the majority thought otherwise.

At the heart of the climate change agenda, just like all communist ideals, has to do with control. Hence the term as describing the new communist as a watermelon; green (environmentalist) on the outside but red (communist) on the inside. The whole climate change belief is to guilt trip the world, cripple world economies at the direction of an unelected bureaucracy. Even scarier some of these people are zero population believers. This means the reduction of the human population and do this humans need to be guilt trip about not having kids and not consuming resources which can be done if governments across the world institutes this in which they ration what people can use. This is the real agenda of the climate cult.