Fresh Rain

Re-interpreting Climate Change

by Kalandar Warren

This brief article is my overview of my “journey” of understanding the Climate Change issue. Al Gore’s 2002 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth was a big step in that process. It offered seemingly incontrovertible arguments and based on his projections, the world was heading for big trouble; the “tipping points” analogy was a logical conclusion.

That film was twenty years ago, and a great deal has happened since then. Gore’s teacher, Roger Revelle, disagreed with his stark conclusions and his compelling yet alarmist, short-time frame graphs did not tell the whole story.

My own experience of Covid-19 convinced me that the UK government had lied and that lie was backed up by the establishment. If it could lie about that whole “catastrophe,” why couldn’t its basic mission concerning greenhouse gas emissions (ghg’s) and anthropogenic global warming also be concocted to suit its own agenda?

Reading Peter Taylor’s authoritative book, Chill, it’s clear the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t like the idea of cycles; that implies climatic variability isn’t necessarily random and also that climate change may be linked to other factors besides increasing volumes of carbon dioxide. There are two distinct schools of scientists working on these issues; they are not on the same page.

The younger scientists use computer modelling to justify their simulated conclusions, while the older group are more hands-on field scientists e.g., taking ice-core samples from Antarctica or observing ocean currents. There is a basic division with the data sets; in the UK, computer modellers using recorded data e.g., temperature, rainfall figures only going as far back as 1850, whereas the field scientists can make observations in the field e.g., with sediment patterns in arid landscapes that can go back as far as 10,000 years or further. A lot of room for conflicting views here.

So, what is the truth?

In a sense, the answer doesn’t matter; there needs to be change; much more focus on adaptation, whether it’s an emergency or not. What does matter is whose hands the agenda is in. Are we living in a transparent world in relation to climate change analysis and methodology? The level of dissension over climate-related issues has been around now for decades. We all know the Exxon story.

Too many of the decisions that underpin UN thinking are influenced by big corporations who have invested huge sums of money to “achieve” the outcomes that suit them. That is also apparent in the C40 (smart cities) initiative to get people living in what some observers see as “digital prisons” necessitating a high level of surveillance and control, and mirroring what is going on in China. So, has the globalist agenda infected seemingly well-intentioned bodies like the

UN and WHO?

It’s worth listing the basic active principles behind The Great Reset:

1) Vaccines and control of health

2) the 5G telecom network: the Internet of Things

3) The CO2 narrative re Climate Change: think “smart cities”

4) The Digital Identity passport, and

5) The CBDC (Central Bank digital currency) and the cashless society.

I’m suggesting here to ask questions and try on for size these tenets of what may sound far-fetched right now, but which increasingly have disturbing relevance. While the eighteen United Nations SDG’s (sustainable development goals) appear plausible and well-intentioned, some are definitely more questionable. Take one example: there is a vote at the end of May to determine whether nations signed up to WHO should hand over to it their independent control of medical responses to the next pandemic. If that happens the World Health Organisation will then move from advisory status to mandatory status in its deliberations. In my book, that’s the Great Reset taking shape.

So … what to do? What factors can help to take our power back and organise effective adaptability responses?

Soil health is a good place to begin; looked after well, our soils store carbon in abundance. Secondly, the business of wars and the whole arms industry are negative drag factors; it means more concrete and more emissions.

Thirdly, develop personal resilience as a spiritual path.

Fourth factor is the electric car market. They may emit less CO2 but the greatest emissions are involved in first the whole build of the car, and secondly, in the enormous energy wrapped up in the making of the batteries, not forgetting all that imported lithium and cobalt from third world countries. As I see it, the VW and BMW e-cars are very expensive status symbols that virtue-signal your “green” cred.

Thus, the fifth point is we also need to acknowledge that the climate crisis is also a culture crisis.