Climate Change – 8 Counter Arguments to Debate Its Claims

Climate change – you’ve done your research on it. 

Well, is climate change a monumental scam, manufactured by those in high places to make huge power, profit and political gains for global control, using the fake narrative, carbon-based climate change as an excuse? 

Do those in high places use the climate change lie to wrongly point the finger of blame mainly on humans for their kinetic involvement resulting in carbon emissions? While, further, under the guise of ‘saving the world,’ unjustifiably claiming that there has to be global depopulation as there are too many humans breathing out their CO2 into the world…? 

Is the “science” far from settled? As commented by former Green Peace director and founder Patrick More, have the employed scientists been bought and paid off by the global controllers, told to manipulate data and bias their findings from already flawed climate models for a favorable outcome? 

-From your thorough research all your answers to the above questions are a resounding yes. 

In other words, you’ve seen right through the deception. You have researched-based evidence to prove it.

Now, having found this out, you want to get active, spread the word to others about this scam. You want to raise awareness, so that other people in their awakening can then push back against unrealistic counterproductive measures such the ‘net-zero’ lunacy, and also, just like you, take precautionary measures for protection against the related tyranny…

A number of us in the know realize that while helping others with their awakening, it can be hugely challenging when spreading the word, effectively exposing the climate change deception. 

One sure-fire thing you must have in your armory is to know your stuff on this subject. Be prepared for what others will say to you and know what to say back to them in anticipation.

In light of this, here are 8 counter-arguments to debate the climate change claim.

Claim #1

“We’re all doomed. Climate change is a crisis.”  

-Counter argument

Climate change does exist. Historic, short and long-term research data (over decades, hundreds, thousands and millions of years) confirms this. However, there is currently no climate change emergency.

Thousands of researchers such as, for examples, Dr. Judith Curry, former founder Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology stated that “…there’s no emergency.” 

The same conclusion was reached by Nobel laureate physicist Dyson Freeman. He said: “I don’t think there’s any catastrophe… It’s foolish to do anything spectacular.”

In spite of these claims to the contrary, we’re getting told disingenuously that there’s an emergency, with all the mass-hysteria going off the charts in response. This overreaction is based on falsehoods.

Further, the fight against it is not only futile, but also counterproductive. Unconditionally forcing the giving up of entire industries, wrecking economies, mass unemployment, world-wide poverty…  

If anything, we need to learn to adapt to climate change, not fight it (more later).

Claim #2

“Computer-generated models tell us that Earth is uncontrollably heating up.” 

-Counter argument

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) a division of the highly untrustworthy United Nations, have come up with computer-generated models based on Earth’s grids that are hugely flawed. 

Climate model predictions have been nowhere near the actual data. These false data predictions have been used as congressional testimony, sounding off a misinformation false alarm. The predicted versus observed mismatches have been quoted for land atmospheric and sea temperatures: In both cases, observed temperatures are a lot lower than the predicted. These inconsistencies that don’t fit the official climate change narrative have been ignored. 

Besides the above flawed computer-generated models, also consider earlier predictions made some twenty-odd years ago that haven’t happened: Hudson River would be submerged in water, snow would no longer exist, European cities should have disappeared by now as we should have had rising sea levels… etc.,  how can you ever trust the claimers?? 

Claim #3

“Humans are the culprits due to their CO2 output.” 

-Counter argument

Historically speaking, we are currently not experiencing the highest CO2 levels. Time/temperature graphs have shown repeatedly from multiple historic view-points that CO2 ebbs and flows regardless of human activity, due to natural cycles. Natural cycles confound the ability to assume human activity as the cause of CO2 increase.

Above chart shows temperature and CO2 correlations over time. The green vertical line indicates the agreed-upon arrival of the human species, 200,000 years ago. To the right of this line following on to present day, can it really be said that humans are the primary source of CO2?? 

Further, the chart shows unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 increases AFTER a rise in temperature. The reverse of what’s been officially claimed -Boom!

There’s more evidence to show that CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature, it’s the reverse. 

For example, when ocean temperatures  rise, there then follows an increase in CO2. When the ocean temperature drops the atmospheric CO2 then decreases: The CO2 is absorbed back into the ocean. 

-Yet another case of exposing the absurdity of the climate change propaganda. 

Volcanos are another natural source of CO2.

Then there’s the sun and its influences on Earth’s climate…

However, the total nonsense claim that humans cause climate change per se due to their CO2 output is key to the climate change deception. 

The global cult have in effect created a fake bogeyman (there is no climate change emergency), falsely blamed it on us and have held us accountable. It allows them to unjustifiably force their global dystopic control on us: Carbon tax, 15-minute cities, climate change lockdowns, make us eat bugs, stop us having children… -all done under the guise of ‘saving the world.’ 

The vast majority public have fallen for it hook-line and sinker. It’s a perception manipulation. It’s a depopulation psy-op that originated from the Club of Rome in the sixties. 

Claim #4

“CO2 is a nasty polluting gas causing climate change…” 

-Counter argument

While unjustifiably demonized, CO2 is the ‘gas of life.’ Without it we would all be dead. We would not have a food supply if it were absent. No food chain. The more CO2 there is, the 

richer the plantation: Plants breathe in CO2 for their life and give out oxygen, we breathe in oxygen for our life and give out CO2. -This is our symbiotic relationship with plants in ‘nature.’

Adding to the carbon false demonization there is much misunderstanding when it comes to the so-called greenhouse effect. When it comes to ‘greenhouse gases’ many might be surprised to know that water vapor is the greatest contributor by far, around 95% of the total. 

-In comparison, the CO2 contribution is only about 3.6%. So why blame humans when they only make a fraction of CO2 contribution to this 3.6% figure?! Methane, nitrogen and miscellaneous gases make small greenhouse gas contributions to the overall percentage fractions.  

Temperature and CO2 changes can also fluctuate independently of each other. Temperature fluctuations also have much to do with the Earth’s core, mantle and crust influencing the internal water temperature changes. 

Another crucial contribution made by CO2 is its ability to hold in heat in the atmosphere. If this didn’t happen then Earth’s atmospheric temperature could drop by 20 degrees Celsius, as the heat, no longer retained, would dissipate into outer space. 

Ask yourself, ‘cui bono?’ who benefits from a significant reduction in temperature, less plant and animal life, with a big drop in human population? -I’ll leave that answer to you. Hint: It certainly isn’t we-the-people.

Claim #5

“CO2 producing fossil fuels have to be stopped, as alternative energy forms are the solution.”

-Counter argument

While cleaner energy sounds welcoming, many people with their virtue-signaling don’t understand that it’s not just about replacing cars and planes. There are thousands of applications that cannot be replaced with alternative energy. Our lives are still built around fossil fuels. 

Then there’s the suppression of ‘free energy.’

Claim #6

“The mainstream media tells us over and over that there is climate change”

-Counter argument

The mainstream media is owned and controlled by the global cult so you cannot trust anything they say. You have to do your research from independent alternative sources to really understand climate change. 

A.I. responses are also untrustworthy, as they are programmed by biased overseers having moneyed, controlling self-interests. 

Claim #7

“The WEF, EU targets of reducing CO2 to around 214 ppm (parts per million) from the current 417ppm has to be achieved.”

-Counter argument

This target is a 45% reduction from the 2010 CO2 levels. That is perilously too low. This level has not been that low since the Pleistocene epoch, lasting from 1,640,000 to about 10,000 years back in time. Achieving the targeted 214 ppm level  would cause the average global temperature to drop by 11 degrees Celsius.  

Consider the potential disastrous implications. 

That would result in Earth’s land getting covered by 25% ice (currently 3%). That would greatly affect and even devastate agricultural land, significant loss of forests, other plantation and extinction of many mammals…  During the Pleistocene  era, some 32-plus different species died. 

Currently, NASA claims that Earth’s flora and fauna is more fertile than 20 years ago. So why change things?!

Claim #8

“Authorities and experts know what’s best…”.

-Counter argument

No, they don’t. Authorities and experts have been bought and paid off to report biased information by the global cult heading the climate change deception. Many individuals, such as the politicians, have been grossly misled, causing them to make bad decisions for policy.

Many “authorities” and “experts” would be shown the door if they didn’t comply with the official climate change narrative.

Finally

Not a complete exhausted Q & A list, but these claims/counter-arguments at least address the backbone of many issues/concerns.

IPCC models do not have a full understanding of the ‘bigger picture’ on what drives climate change. 

Who would really want to live in a world that is the result of the insane ’net zero’ driven agenda?

The need to spread fear mongering in people, based on a false alarm as a means to an end needs to be stopped. 

For harmonious living, alternative, fossil fuel and ‘free’ energies need to be fused together and applied to deal with our requirements and effective handling of Mother Earth.