climate change
Article Revival Conspiracy Environment Expand Your Mind... Featured Government Health Science Tim Bryant Top News World

Climate Change: A Call To Explore What’s Real And What’s Not

There is no escaping it, climate change is a hot topic that is appearing everywhere in today’s culture with no signs of disappearing. It is as polarizing an issue as there is, dividing the public into various types of belief systems. There are so many factors at play in this subject matter that one can only attempt to explain it in the form of a theory based on the available information and research. The subject of climate change is a quagmire of differing facts and opinions overrun with political and financial incentive to manipulate the narrative. This allows for it to appear as if there are two completely contradicting theories, both of which are supposedly anchored in scientific fact, which obviously cannot be. So to gain a clear understanding of this complex issue, one must observe the science behind climate change, track the money that is funding the different belief systems, analyze the solutions being proposed, and finally understand the ideologies behind climate change in the hopes of painting some type of overall objective picture.


According to Wikipedia, “Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time.” To clear things up, most of the time when climate change is mentioned, it refers to anthropogenic climate change, also known as man-made climate change. The science is quite a complex subject to say the least, with a wide variety of variables playing distinctive roles of different magnitude of which are highly debated in the scientific community.

Generally speaking, those who advocate strongly for the existence of anthropogenic climate change, often focus on the increased emission of greenhouse gasses such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, but most notably carbon dioxide, as the main culprit of man-made climate change. The theory is that increased amounts of greenhouse emissions have built up in the atmosphere due to human lifestyles, trapping heat in the atmosphere and not allowing it to escape, resulting in a planet that is abnormally warming. Its origins date back to a paper written by Roger Revelle, which aimed to see if there was a link between greenhouse gases and warming. Revelle actually questioned his theory towards the end of his life, but it just so happens that Al Gore, the son of a politician, was a student of his during the same time Revelle was researching the possibility of man-made global warming. Today, NASA, one of the leading institutions promoting anthropogenic climate change, points to sea level rise, global temperature increase, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic Ice and glacial retreat as evidence of a planet that is unnaturally warming.

Those on the denial side share quite a difference of opinion. One theory is that the Earth is in a natural cycle of warming. Meaning it is not warming any faster than normal rates which points to faulty manipulation of data when it comes to the global temperature calculation. This also points to the high margin of errors in the data, the use of two data sets to get the hockey stick graph, and the overall unreliable science of using tree rings to determine past temperatures. Another major factor of high scrutiny is that of carbon being the culprit, demonstrating how carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth and that it actually promotes increased vegetation, as its often pumped into greenhouses to increase yields.

climate change

Another theory is that the sun has a far larger effect on the Earth’s weather, and therefore is substantially more important than anything humans could do. This is based on the science of solar cycles, the average amount of sunspots observed per month over a one-year period. Everyone on either side acknowledges that the planet’s warming has increased since the last ice age. Yet those denying man-made climate change point to natural cycles of the sun and Earth. This suggests a far less dangerous interpretation of the data than that of the established climate science community who points to cataclysmic numbers due mostly to human release of excess greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.


The money behind climate change is much easier to track on both sides of the debate, at least in terms of a general idea more so than interpreting the science. Climate change advocates have primarily three major sources of money: private foundations, government grants, and financial companies looking to capitalize. Private foundations, which are basically private trusts of wealthy individuals that are tax exempt, contribute major amounts of money to climate change, essentially funding many of the major Green movements. These foundations include the Rockefeller foundation and Ford Foundation, as well as the Environmental Grant makers association. These groups are basically a network of foundations that work together towards common goals, distributing large amounts of capital to those non-profits that align with their interests and work for them accordingly. Another major player is the government, which has spent a ton of money towards combatting climate change, as well as funding green groups and subsidizing the clean energy economy. Finally, large financial companies like Goldman Sachs, have strong interests in bringing about a 315 trillion-dollar carbon permit trading market in which it can exploit for major profits, as well as the companies in the big business of trading weather derivatives. Yes, weather derivatives do exist and there is a big money involved

The money in terms of climate denial comes predominately from those in the energy business, especially oil, natural gas and coal, which obviously stand to lose financially from a clamp down on non-renewable energy sources. Similarly, there are many private foundations who are affiliated with energy as well as those with free market ideology, who strongly advocate against government interference in the energy market as well as promoting the need for cheap energy to keep the current standard of living. Contrary to popular belief, there is far less money on the denial side of climate change politics than that of man-made climate change, which can be often seen in all the major media outlets.


Those in the climate change community usually advocate a move towards renewable energy using government intervention as well as government enforced limits to carbon emissions through the use of limited permits for emission, also known as the carbon trading market. They also want to phase out oil, coal, and gas and use the government to fund investments toward a world of zero emissions; essentially no carbon footprint. This falls right in line with sustainable development, such as cities that can house large populations in small places through shrinking living spaces, as well as declining car use by improving public transportation systems and setting limits to vehicle mileage. Some in this camp even want to start geoengineering (spoiler alert: they already are) as a way of deliberately tampering with the climate in the hopes they can combat climate change, citing that unprecedented measures are necessary to maintain planetary survival. Usually this involves blocking the sun’s rays so they don’t get into the lower atmosphere through aerosols and weather manipulation through HAARP technology.

climate change

Those in the climate denial community have a much different approach. Since they don’t think man-made climate change is a factor, they feel there is no need to panic. To them this is mostly a big scare, however they do acknowledge that the environment isn’t in the best shape. They argue that globalization, due to big government, is one of the leading causing of greenhouse gasses and that by decentralizing the power and control of both central banks and government, the carbon footprint will be vastly reduced. This side does not want to see a rise in energy price or government overreach, therefore stopping the centralization of power over energy and the environment is of high priority.


There is normally two camps that divide the population on climate change. First there are those advocating that the climate is rapidly changing due to human action, leading to potentially cataclysmic consequences for humans. Then there are those who deny climate change as real, not a threat, or at least not man-made, pointing to a natural cycle at play and claiming that government is manufacturing this climate change scare as a way to grab more power for the establishment elite. Climate change advocates usually come from the left of the political spectrum, offering more support of government intervention, and are often of the intellectual crowd. Climate denial is usually touted by those on the political right, or libertarian leaning, who often don’t trust the actions of government and just want more freedom for the individual.

Forming An Objective Picture:

Now this is a lot of information for any one person to take in, especially on the first in-depth venture one takes into the subject. After extensively vetting all the available information, it would appear the answer lies somewhere in the middle, with a few major factors that play substantial roles being completely omitted from the opinions of almost all the “experts” on either side of the subject matter.

It seems pretty clear from basic science that the environment is not healthy at all. That fact is really not debatable, as humans have physically and culturally disconnected from an environment which they are co-dependent upon. The Earth-human interaction is clearly that of an unequal relationship, with humans blindly exsanguinating the Earth of its assets, yet giving nothing comparable back in return to promote a healthy balance from which all life can thrive. Many scientists are even pointing to Earth being deep into the process of a 6th mass extinction, claiming species extinction rates are off the charts compared to normal rates. This alone should scare everyone.

climate change

As far as the hard climate science goes, it is honestly very hard to calculate whether the Earth is warming or not. In the end, it can only be a calculation, for one cannot simply stick a thermometer in the Earth and read its temperature. There is also an infinite amount of variables that many are still attempting to interpret and understand. No one is denying that it has been warming since the last ice age, but seeing an abnormality in the data is a bit tougher, not to mention measuring how much of that is man-made and what exactly is causing it. Carbon Dioxide seems like it may be more of a minuscule factor (not to say it’s not a factor) compared to others, putting into question the very foundation of climate change science.

Everything becomes even more suspect when looking into the money behind the institutions producing these calculations and the methods by which they’re calculating them. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), NASA, and many of the Big Green groups have all had their fair share of scandals, which brings their credibility into question. It should also be noted that most things in climate science are compartmentalized; some study the science, others make solutions, another team writes the laws, and so on and so forth. This separation of duties in the process makes it easy to steer the narrative toward the desired outcome, as many are only fulfilling the role for which they were paid, and nothing more.  The bigger picture is often only seen by the top players, usually the ones funding the studies.

It is also quite weird when considering the Rockefellers have an intimate connection to oil, yet somehow are backing the switch away from its use. Something smells fishy; maybe playing both sides? Anyone who has researched the history of the Rockefellers or the Federal government, knows that they often play both sides and almost never have the people’s best interest in mind, to say the least. Not only do these groups seek personal profit from all angles, but they seek to increase their power more than anything else. No rational person would deny that destroying the environment is a bad thing or that branching into cleaner energy sources is popular amongst a large majority of people. However, the current political agenda surrounding the topic of climate change isn’t about saving the environment or helping the people. Instead, it is about creating the climate change problem so that the established elite can then save the planet for profit. Hegelian dialect 101: problem, reaction, solution.

Knowing the history of the elite class, the Rockefellers in particular, it seems none too hard of a connection to make that climate change is being used to increase profits on one end, while allowing them to accumulate more power on the other; leading to what many would caution is the elite agenda toward a one world government/New World Order. It’s important to get the image of a shadowy group out of one’s mind and start to realize the more subtle nature of this, as can be seen in the massive wealth inequality present in the world today.

Currently, international agreements are often hand shake agreements that are symbolic in nature, but have no real enforcement mechanisms due to countries having the sovereignty of domestic law that trumps that of international law. However, by bringing about legally binding agreements on climate change, international bodies of law and governance can start to arise with the ability to undermine domestic law and therefore slowly diminish national sovereignty. This would coincide directly with free-trade deals like the TPP, which also aims to standardize rules over large geographic areas and use international tribunals of unelected officials to rule over disputes. Climate change legislation could also bring about a global tax grid by taxing emissions, which could lead to independent funding of the U.N. If people feel that these groups have too much power now, wait until laws are created by unelected international bodies instead of national bodies of elected officials.


At this point, the first thing people need to do is start to research, engage others, and start to wake up to all the threads that intertwine into this problem. There are truths on both sides of the aisle, but there are also flat-out lies on both sides of the aisle as well. There are also those truths that are completely omitted from the information spectrum such as geoengineering, radiation levels, and GMO’s. Genoengineering in particular is such a major factor, as it is the direct manipulation of the climate. Yet most people have no idea that it’s been covertly going on for over 50 years now. At the end of the day, this is only information that people can use to form their own opinions and attempt to expand past this article. The answers are there, but it’s up to the free thinkers to continue marching forward, despite all the propaganda and misinformation. Think for yourselves, but aim for unbiased truth. Only then will solutions arise.


Tim Bryant
An avid free-thinker, Tim has set out on a mission in search of the truth in whatever form it may come. Ever since his awakening several years ago, his passion for knowledge and justice has led him on a journey into deep research, cultural travel, and complete expansion of the mind. Tim feels as if the information freely flowing into the hands of the public, due to the dawn of the Internet, cannot be stopped at this point, so he has made it his goal to help facilitate and breakdown this complex stream of information, so that others can accelerate their own awakening and be part of the inevitable change happening in society.

5 Replies to “Climate Change: A Call To Explore What’s Real And What’s Not

  1. Well written and researched article. I don’t know many who could have done as much.

    One quibble, however: first, I admit that I am on the fence over the issue of geoengineering, which isn’t to say that I am incredulous of the idea that resolute efforts have been made in this direction or are even now being made.

    But there is a difference between research into developing methods of control, whether large or small in scale, and the techniques already being implemented and a reality.

    If the latter is the case, and geoengineering has now become the primary driver of climate events (which I seriously doubt), then all efforts should be toward exposing the fact, since this purported ‘fact,’ not having anything to do with CO2, becomes “the” issue, and in that case why conclude your piece by suggesting that the we should by all means keep debating the science of AGW, its methods, and its results (– a position, by the way, with which I entirely agree)? For if it’s geoengineering that is the current driver of climate, then it’s not CO2, landscapes, atmospheric and oceanic cycles, land-use,or the sun, and certainly not the science, that should be the focus of “our” efforts, since on the assumption that effective geoengineering techniques already exist and are being systematically deployed, all of the other issues would thereby seem to have been already scientifically settled, if covertly.

    Personally, apart from the interplay of all the competing institutional interests over the AGW issue, I strongly suspect that the science of climate is as yet far too tentative and unseasoned to be able to predict, much less control, the overall trend of climate change on this planet.

    1. Thanks for the comment. I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner. I didn’t notice the comment at first, so it must of snuck through the cracks.

      I’ve actually had a bit of time to reflect on what I wrote and take in new info, which has altered my perspective a bit. I kind of entertain the idea now that the Earth is probably warming, but it’s not due to carbon dioxide, although that might have a minuscule effect on temperature, but more due to a natural cycle the planet is in, which I theorize is due to the idea that the sun has a binary star which helps create the procession of the equinox and different cycles of climate. The Earth might get pulled into higher and lower areas of energy due to the sun orbiting another star.

      Im sure the human races personal interaction with the environment does tons of damage to the planets ability to sustain our current way of life and biodiversity, but I’m not sure that is what is causing the temperature effect. I think the temperature is largely due to the cycle. I know that is probably a little off base from what many would say, but that is where the research has lead me, at least for now.

      1. There is no way you can ignore what is being sprayed world wide. I found it refreshing to actually see an article that actually mentions geoengineering. Another ignored fact is that nothing is being done with the huge amounts of radiation leaking from Fukushima…no news is good news? What bs. Put a plastic wrap around melted nuclear reactors and the problem is solved? Hardly. The pacific ocean is dying along with the aquatic life sustained therein. You cannot be so blind as to beleive that “scientists” cant figure out why so much of the ocean is heating up. Its man made anthropogenic radiation that has continually spilled out from the reactors that are still melting down.
        The newest temp records should tell you this unless you are hiding these facts like the rest of the media. Wake up for god sake. Tell people the f’ing truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *