The Change of Climate Change

~Written by Tim Walsh 7/14/2019

During a July 11 2019 hearing before the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05) got a panel of climate science experts to admit that “humans are not responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years.” 

Wait… what??

For the past 30-40 years “climate scientists” have been sounding the alarm bells about Climate Change. This global movement hasn’t always had that name. Originally, it was called “Global Warming”. The theory was that as more CO2 is produced, earth’s atmosphere will trap more heat, and global temperatures would eventually get warmer and warmer, going into a “thermal runaway” condition.

When average global temperatures started declining and “Global Warming” no longer fit the cause, the name was changed to “Climate Change”. After all, Earth’s climate has been changing ever since earth has had a climate.

Lets look back in history. The 1970 Earth Day predictions were: the end of civilization in 15-30 years, 100-200 million deaths to starvation yearly for 10 years, and a new ice age by 2000.

Wait, an ice age? Weren’t things supposed to melt?

Al Gore has championed the Global Warming / Climate Change cause for decades, profiting handsomely while doing it. Yet, every single one of his predictions has failed to come true. The most common warning is that the earth will be uninhabitable in 10-12 years, which has been repeated over and over.

Even the UN had committees trying to advance the cause saying we are “at the tipping point”. 3

NASA Scientist James Hansen, “The Father of Global Warming” even admitted to congress in 1988 that data used to promote his climate change theory was false and fraudulently manipulated by Al Gore to suit an agenda. So where do we get REAL science on this subject? Are “climate deniers” really “science deniers”? or is there some sensible approach to all of this?

If it is now understood that data was manipulated to suit the agenda, how can the unmanipulated data be obtained and evaluated to produce actual results instead of manipulated results? Lets look at an article I consider “the gold standard” for how to evaluate Global Warming, Climate Change, and the whole globalist movement to try to unify the world against this “global threat”.

Mike Van Biezen is a writer for “The Daily Wire” and he wrote an article aptly titled: titled: “The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever” . The format of this article is outstanding in that it breaks the issue down to the nuts and bolts of the entire issue.

There are three main themes in his article; CO2 is not “pollution”, real data evaluation does not support global warming theory, and conditions described as “the results” of global warming are not caused by global warming. He also points out that as a result of his three main points, climate does change, but the impact humans have is minimal.

One of his observations is “that there appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit”. He goes on to point out that many of the arguments always use 1980 as a baseline. The saying “Since 1980 average global temperatures have increased..” is common in teaching global warming and climate change theory.

I think the most brilliant observation he makes is “There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels”. To quote: “Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder.” This statement in his article blows the whole “ocean acidification” theory out of the water.

Some more recent science has found there are microbes in the ocean that consume methane, and expel CO2, which seaweed, kelp, and other underwater plants consume to expel Oxygen. Methane, is also another “alarmist gas” but significant concentrations usually appear along the coast, more likely due to subduction of tectonic plates that forces organic material to the mantle – producing methane.

SO now we have to ask ourselves: where do we go with this information? I contend we have to look at what really IS pollution. Ethanol in gasoline produces sulphuric acid in your car exhaust to the point you’ll never see more than 20-30% before the engine starts to rot from inside. Industrial pollution pumps sulphites, and sulphates into the atmosphere that can easily cause acid rain.

To top that off, many other countries do not even hold them selves to the “carbon standards” the United States has been held to in the Paris Climate accord. China and India are among the worst offenders, and yet the Paris Climate accord is set up to provision the United States to give money to other countries. That sound like a giant scam to me, and I don’t want to pay for that.

I am glad to see revelations are coming out about how the whole climate change is a political cause based on information that was manipulated to suit the cause. I would like to see our government lead the way towards getting other countries into fighting what really IS pollution.







1 view

©2019 by WECU NEWS. Proudly created with