Political Faceoff: Climate Change – Republican


Let me preface this article by addressing what is likely to be my opponent’s main line of argument, namely that all scientists agree that climate change is occurring and is a threat. This is perhaps the most damaging falsehood generated by the environmental agenda, and I hear it most often when debating them. “No one should ever question the legitimacy of climate change, because some poll of scientists agree in some way about it.”

This is not a scientific argument, as science in the ideal holds rational inquiry of any idea as the ultimate goal; instead it is a justification for the silencing of many qualified individuals that present legitimate points against the climate change lobby. Ironically, big science falls victim to its own prejudices in this regard. Is it not the case that in 1543, virtually every scientist thought of the Earth as the center of the solar system? Should nobody have questioned this?

Truthful then as now, it is very much in the interest of scientists who receive their income based on the established notion to perpetuate myth rather than question it. Every piece of environmental thought is debated from the heights of scientists down to the lay population.

Even the main body of global warming alarmism, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underwent hundreds of defections from its own former scientists who challenged the ‘consensus’ of man­made warming.

The climate does change, but global warming alarmists never want to look at the whole picture. Rather, they create the misperception that the Earth was suspended in some monolithic temperature until the industrial revolution. In reality, the Earth has been much warmer than it is today.

The Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D., allowed for the colonization of Greenland by Vikings and even the growth of grapes in Northern Europe, and it is not thought to be nearly as warm as around 1000 B.C.

A Little Ice Age followed from about 1600 to 1800, in which temperatures were much cooler than today. As to what causes this cycle, much data supports a strong correlation between sunspot activity and the earth’s temperature.

Any data on the extensive warming of the earth comes from surface temperature readings, which are affected by the heat of urbanization. Readings from satellite and weather balloon data have shown no atmospheric warming since 1958, but environmentalists have conveniently forgotten this.

With respect to the growth of greenhouse gases, the minor greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide accounts for only ~26% of greenhouse gases. At most, humans contribute one fourth of this ~26%. This means if humanity were to stop existing, greenhouse emissions would decrease by at most ~6%. This number is far shy of the estimates of our supposed required reductions in gases.

Global warming activists of today, in reality share a general dislike for human populations, especially Western ones, which exhibit high levels of industrialization. What they really want is a kind of utopian primitivism, in which the majority of the world’s population could not survive. Their cause is to “de­develop” the Western world and ensure the poverty of all other nations.

They have made it their business to oppose the development of human prosperity in every part of the world, especially for underdeveloped markets in Africa, Asia, and Asia Minor who are in most need of economic growth. They have accomplished this by spreading misinformation in democratic nations and silencing their opponents with political institutions.

The climate lobby is actively holding poorer nations down using the power of wealthy ones, another one of the countless contradictions presented by global warming activists.


  1. Could you please cite your sources, in reference to the percentages of green house gas emissions as well as the satellite atmospheric warming data?

  2. “The climate lobby is actively holding poorer nations down using the power of wealthy ones, another one of the countless contradictions presented by global warming activists.”

    Actually, when it comes to climate change, the most economically underdeveloped countries get it the worst. Look up how many countries within the regions you listed have access to clean water. And what about the effect of sea level rise on the severity of monsoons? Or the severe droughts that currently displace 1.5 million Syrian farmers?

    Mediating these effects under the constraints of regional instability, government corruption, and lacking infrastructure is downright impossible. That’s why, say, getting clean water access to underdeveloped regions is among the biggest environmental initiatives going on today. We can’t just ship the water – no, it’s not because the climate change scientists won’t let us burn the carbon dioxide – it’s because it’s too impractical and no one has the money for it. Local access is the only way to do it, because most of the potentially drinkable water just gets wasted or polluted.

Leave a Reply