By Benjamin Solomon, Staff Writer
This article does not represent my point of view and is meant to portray itself as absurd.
Ask nearly any college student what they think of climate change and you’re likely to get a similar answer. Something along the lines of “it’s not good.”
But ask the same students what climate change really is and you will get much more varied answers. Most of them can’t articulately describe what they claim to know.
Why can’t they describe it? Clearly the answer is that they are attempting to describe a fake theory.
The first thing to raise suspicion is that climate change used to be known by other names. It was global cooling, then global warming, and now climate change.
Those first two seem like real opposites. How can this be the same theory? How can this be a real theory? Some claim that the majority of scientists agree with this theory. How do we know that they are not in on the conspiracy?
That’s right. Climate change is a concept originally intended to be used in a liberal, neo-socialist project of global wealth redistribution which was hijacked by different liberal elites for personal gain.
See, when rumblings about global cooling first came about in the 1970s, the United States was involved in the Cold War.
Elements of the government sympathetic to the Soviet Union created a plan designed to slow the growth of the U.S. and prop up the third world countries, which was planned to eventually lead to global communism, but that’s another story.
To this end, these officials convinced scientists to back their wild theory in return for consistent, constant research grants.
The theory centered around the idea that the world is being negatively altered by byproducts of the U.S. industry, and this could only be stopped by slowing our production and helping third world countries to develop in a detrimental way.
By helping, I of course mean paying.
This method proved so convincing that other Western countries willingly opted into programs to fight climate change. These countries sabotaged their own growth to attempt to mitigate a non-existent problem.
This would have ended after the Soviet Union’s fall in the early 1990’s, were it not for the patron saint of the entire green movement, Al Gore.
Failed presidential candidate Gore released a book called An Inconvenient Truth which claimed to reveal a bunch of intricacies of climate change (at this time referred to as global warming).
What Gore doesn’t tell his readers is how much money he planned to make from them buying this phony book. Sure, he may have already been a millionaire, but that’s never stopped an oligarch before.
Gore’s genius nonsense inspired millions of Americans to discuss and eventually normalize the idea of climate change. In return, Gore made millions of dollars.But, you may ask, how is Gore wrong?
First of all, there’s all the unfulfilled, fake predictions. Scientists keep saying that Pacific islands like Tuvalu and others are going to be sinking into the ocean due to supposed increased sea levels from melting polar ice caps, but that’s not true.
Tuvalu has actually been growing since the time it was predicted to have experienced complete flooding.
Now if that doesn’t utterly destroy the entire theory of climate change, I don’t know what does.
Some may point to the upsurge in tropical storms and hurricanes, the droughts and raging forest fires, or the intensely cold winters and say these represent an impact of climate change.
But these are just weather incidents. Climate change is about long-term weather differences which if you start from 1985 (not before – don’t look at that) things have only gotten less severe. Besides, things are just overreported in the internet age we live in.
While it may be a good excuse to hobble our nation’s progress, climate change is demonstrably unfounded in science.