I will debate you on this topic...no insults, no browbeating, marginalizing or demonizing.....just the facts....what say ye?
Cool. But its nothing to debate. Its science against uncertainty. Science wins unless uncertainty can prove something...anything.
I believe scientists not hucksters who shrug and go "Seasons!".
Au contraire, because I have studied this topic quite a bit and I must interject here because this "climate change" agenda was on the table before most were even born......from the Iron Mountain Report commissioned by JFK that was finished before he was murdered. "Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions. For this reason, we believe further speculation about its putative nature ill-advised in this context".
Let's fast forward to the formation of the Club Of Rome, a think tank group and an offshoot of the U.N and their "zero growth" proposal that would in essence shut down the industrial growth of all developing nations that they controlled...in particular, the United States. They started with shutting down decent paying jobs like in the steel plants...then the textile factories...they then went after the auto workers by allowing in cheap imports with little to no tariffs. They used environmental laws to go after any manufacturer that made a product until it became unprofitable to continue . They went after the family farms via bank loans that tried to produce more food using more machinery that they had to finance via Promissory notes and then controlling the price of commodities produced by the farmer even though it would mean that third world populations would starve because they were deprived....as by feeding them would only encourage them to re-produce....you see, to the globalists? Every time a baby is born, the earth groans and so forth. The middle class of America had to be decimated and it has been done systematically through unfair trade agreements that has fucked over every Johnny Lunchpail in this country.
I can give you more evidence but I think you have enough to chew on...between now and our next conversation? Look up some quotes from Maurice Strong and the 1992 Rio conference and Agenda 21....just a little homework for you.
