Firstly, I do believe that most of us would like to be on the right side of history. That’s human nature. So, I understand why there has been a huge outcry about America pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
But I don't think many people have really looked at what the Agreement states and proposes. I have always personally thought it to be a terrible deal accept for the people running it who look to make a fortune from the plan.
Let me be clear, of course I believe that protecting our environment is our responsibility, but this agreement would not come close to doing that and would bankrupt many countries in the process, especially 3rd world nations. It would do this while ignoring some of the basic environmental problems that need to be addressed urgently.
Just because the "World Leaders" tell us this is the only solution doesn't mean it’s true. This plan was rushed through without Congressional Approval in America or public vote anywhere and no one really knew what the details or costs were and still don't. Most countries were bullied into signing it as far as I can tell.
I hope that a new and better plan can be found that would actually have a real impact on the environmental issues we face. That funding can be given to projects and studies that look at the overall environmental problems and not only towards proving that Co2 is the enemy.
Sending 100's of billions of dollars to an un-elected, faceless group of people who will not be held accountable does not sound very smart to me. Do we know anything about who runs the Green Climate Fund and who will benefit financially? This is the fund where they say all the taxes will be held and distributed from.
What do they actually plan to do with that money? Will they release that information and why haven’t they yet? This money after all belongs to the tax paying citizens of the world.
Impoverished countries in some parts of Africa and elsewhere need to first have industries, running water and electricity before they can be penalised for C02 emissions. The lie is that the 3rd world will benefit the most from this deal. This does not seem true when analysing the agreement.
The document (link below) actually looks a lot like a record deal, and that is not a good thing. Legal speak, vagueness with intentional verbosity that almost no one can fathom. Smoke and mirrors with 100's of loopholes and scope for massive growth and amendments.
I also don't buy the '97% of all scientists agree' talking point. I have seen more than enough evidence to question this so-called fact. (See some links below). At least enough to continue a debate. I am talking about numerous scientists who were listed as being in agreement and included in the 97%, who actually state very clearly and publicly that they have been misquoted and ousted from their industries for being "denialists". So why are they still listed as being a part of the 97% and still being named in the study?
There is another side to this story, it’s just being silenced. My question is why?
If 97% of scientists are in agreement why does CNN have to resort to having Bill Nye the Science Guy (He’s not a scientist by the way) on air to give his expert opinion? With so many scientists in agreement surely, they could interview a new scientist everyday breaking the facts down and showing concrete evidence. That would be an argument, that would be something I could listen to.
I get so frustrated with environmental activists/celebrities/media/politicians who preach to the everyday man about how we are destroying our planet while they fly around on private jets, eat their endangered speciality foods and enrich themselves off the back of their tax-free foundations they push down our throats. It just does not make sense. And why are we not asking them for results and evidence of the good the millions they raise have done? When small charities around the world doing far more on the ground get no platform and struggle to stay afloat and these poor charities are under extreme scrutiny and bound by heavy regulations. Why do we just accept these double standards?
If CO2 emissions are such a critical and urgent issue should we not stop all flights and halt manufacturing cars? Because paying a CO2 tax just seems like another money-making scheme to me. What are they going to do with the money? How will we know that they are doing anything? We need more information and they need to give the power back to the people to decide based on real evidence. We are not idiots so let’s make sure we don't behave like such.
And then we have Al Gore (also not a scientist). Al Gore is a politician who found a source of income and creation of a legacy after his failed attempts at the presidency. He has personally made millions from this cause and none of his predictions have come true. Why are we still listening to him? Why? Perhaps it’s because the main stream media, politicians and google tell us to? We are in a very sad state if we cannot think for ourselves anymore. We are capable of great things, we have achieved great things and shouldn’t be slaves to the ideas or plans of a few.
Science is never a settled affair. The reason we have made such advancements in Science is because of debate, because others have attempted to prove the accepted theories incorrect. That is a healthy situation to be in.
Science can never be settled, that’s not the way it works or ever has. So, to call someone a “Denialist” is purely a silencing technique. Why would they want to silence experts who may be able to come up with a better solution or have a better theory? Isn’t the goal to help the planet and the humans and animals on it?
This is my view anyway and I am not convinced that CO2 emissions are the biggest threat to the world. The data just does not point in that direction from my perspective. And I’m not a scientist, but I have eyes and ears and the capability of objective thinking.
Have a look for yourself, be informed. Looking for alternative voices is the smart thing to do. I for one am not convinced by politicians, main stream media and Leonardo De Caprio alone, are you?
If we are responsible for our planet’s future should we not inform ourselves? Because posting about how much you hate the “denialists” is not helping. It’s virtue signalling and only shows you to be a follower and not an individual in the world.
These are my opinions and I only wanted to air them to retain my personal voice. I for one am not quite ready to hand that over just yet. I am convinced by facts and evidence not emotional outcries or talking points.
If you are interested in the other voices, please see links below for a start (There's a lot more out there).
I'd love to hear your views, get your feedback and debate is always welcome!
I'm no science expert, but neither is Michael Moore.