Is There A Grain Of Truth Hidden In The Climate Change Scare?

Could it be possible that the Climate Change crowd has something right?

No, I’m not changing camps. I’m still what they call a climate change denier and I expect I always will be. As far as I’m concerned, all the climate change crowd has going for them is a bunch of hype. Nobody is going to change my mind with their lies; they need to show me the data that proves their point of view.

Nevertheless, I still remember that every good lie is based upon a grain of truth. So I have to accept that there is a grain of truth hidden somewhere in the clime change scare; perhaps even more than one such grain. The trick, as with many such things, is separating the wheat from the chaff.

This Device Easily Turns Air Into Water!

One such grain is that the climate is always changing. As we all know, the world has passed through more than one ice age, with warming periods in-between. There is ample physical evidence to prove this. Using their own time scale, this started happening long before man became a major factor and especially before mankind’s inventions could have had anything to do with the climate.

Recently, a report out of NASA confirms that climate change is caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit. This makes more sense than anything else I’ve heard, for no other reason than the fact that it is the rays of the sun which warm the Earth. Since we know that the Earth’s orbit includes some wobble and other eccentricities, we should expect some change in our climate.

Another apparent truth that the climate change community points to is that sea levels are rising. I’ve seen evidence of this one first hand. Living on the coast, I’ve seen how the mean sea level on our sea wall is higher than it was when I was a kid. My brother-in-law, who is from the Pacific island archipelago of Palau, tells me that the same is happening there. Similar stories have come out from other islands. I find it hard to believe that they are all a well-coordinated fake.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s take the rising waters as fact. If we do, there is still the argument about why the waters are rising. According to those who push climate change, it’s because the Arctic ice sheet is melting. There seems to be a fairly regular string of stories pointing to this, with people making a big deal about glaciers disappearing and other such signs.

Those on the political right counter those arguments by pointing to Antarctica, where there is record growth in the ice sheet. It appears that there is a shift in the world’s accumulation of ice, with it moving from one pole to the other. This could possibly be because of a change in the Earth’s poles and axial tilt.

In my mind, the two cancel out each other, at least to some extent, eliminating that as the reason for the apparent rising of the ocean’s level. But there are two other things which I think could account for the rising oceans; the sinking of landmass and the drying up of our aquifers.

It is a given that the Earth is geologically active. There are ample earthquakes and volcanoes to give testimony to that. The tectonic plates of the Earth’s crust are moving over the molten center of our planet. As part of this, the continents are slowly drifting apart in the very same action which geologists say caused the creation of the world’s various mountain ranges.

At the same time, the Earth’s aquifers are drying up and their levels are dropping. These aquifers are a major source of water for commercial, industrial, agricultural and home use. We are pumping that water out of the ground at a much faster rate than it can be replenished, increasing the amount of surface water on the Earth. Eventually, all that water ends up in the world’s oceans.

Okay… But, So What?

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the oceans are rising. Is that something we should be concerned about? I would have to say, “Yes,” although it’s not anything to panic about.

If we look at the world’s population, we find that the greatest population density is near the water, specifically near the various coastlines, close to the oceans. While I’m not the alarmist type that says these people’s cities are going to end up underwater in the next couple of years, if we extrapolate out the current rise in the oceans’ level, we find that some of the cities will be in danger of being underwater within a few decades. That’s reason for concern.

What happens when people’s homeland are threatened by natural forces? Those who can, move to someplace else. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about rising oceans, drought, earthquakes, wars or zombie invasions, people tend to migrate from danger filled areas, to ones where it is safer and more comfortable to live.

How About some Examples?

Researchers have recently come to the conclusion that the mass Syrian migration to Europe was driven, at least in part, by drought. Their claim is that drought in Syria caused civil war. Then, in response to that war, refugees left their homeland, traveling to Europe to settle.

Laying aside whether this conclusion is correct for the moment, the chain of events that the researchers have put together is at least credible. It demonstrates the idea that people migrate from problem-ridden areas to others where they are safe, when the risk to their own lives is serious enough to warrant it. I’m not talking about the normal vagrancies of life here; I’m talking about things which are serious enough to warrant a risk to life and limb.

There are places in the world where environmental conditions are that severe. Probably the most common condition causing a need to migrate is drought. Much of the world is still living under conditions where drought is a serious issue. They don’t have the vast water infrastructure that we do here in the US or that our cousins in Europe enjoy. In those lands, drought can quickly lead to death. That’s ample reason to move.

The city of Venice, in Italy is probably the most obvious of these. There, the people are dealing with a combination of the city sinking, while the water levels are rising. Flooding is becoming more and more commonplace, with the city’s center, St. Mark’s Square, flooding more than 60 times per year. During times of storms, as much as 70 percent of the city can end up flooding.

This is not just a recent problem either. City officials have been managing the city’s problems with flooding since the 12th century. The city’s tidal lagoon is probably one of the most highly controlled waters of the world. Yet, even with centuries of efforts behind them, it is clear that they are losing the battle. Eventually, the city will end up having to be abandoned.

Can’t it be Stopped?

Using Venice as an example, about the best that anyone can do to prevent coastal flooding and the loss of coastal cities is buy some time. Granted, they’ve bought a lot of time, but they haven’t been able to put off the inevitable. Sea levels have risen 26cm since 1870, which adds to the sinking of the city and its outer barrier islands, caused by the emptying of the aquifer underneath the Venice lagoon.

One of the means of control the city is utilizing is a series of storm gates to hold back the incoming tides. Yet that can cause its own problems. As the gates are closed more, less of the water entering the lagoon is able to flush out into the ocean, resulting in a rise in the nutrients in the lagoon’s water. That, in turn, leads to an increase of plant growth, changing the ecosystem.

Again, So What?

Nothing is likely to happen in the next few years, but it appears that people are ultimately going to be forced to move away from existing coastal towns and cities. We saw the first real example of this with Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people, displaced by the hurricane, turned their backs on New Orleans and moved to other areas. Likewise, ten percent of the people displaced by Hurricane Harvey in Houston, have moved to other areas.

This was from a localized, temporary rise in the water level, flooding people’s homes. What’s going to happen when a more permanent rising of the sea level forces these people to evacuate? We’re going to see a mass exodus of people moving inland, trying to find new homes.

The question then becomes, how are the inland cities going to absorb these people? I’m leaving towns and villages out of this, because I think most of those people will move to the major population centers. But where will they live? Where will they find jobs? How will that affect the cost of living in those areas?

We can get a glimpse of this by looking at Denver, Colorado. I grew up in the Denver area and the population has doubled since I lived there. How did it double? By Californians fleeing their state. This started due to a series of major earthquakes, and has since accelerated due to rising taxes in the Golden State. Today, the high population has drastically increased the cost of living in the Denver metropolitan area, especially the cost of housing.

Should some event or series of events cause massive flooding along our coasts, such as could happen from a tsunami, the type of population increase seen in Denver could happen overnight, in a number of different cities, rather than over a period of years. What city is ready to receive that sort of population influx? How would we handle it?

Historically, times of great lack and times of major financial distress have resulted in increases in lawlessness. People have needs, and if they can’t find any legal way to meet those needs, they do what they have to do. That includes stealing from others and committing acts of violence to take what others have.

Such a scenario could cause the kinds of widespread social unrest and lawlessness talked about in the prepping and survival community. People moving into those cities would be more like an invading army, rather than a mass migration. Even unarmed, they could do considerable damage.

In addition to doing damage, these masses of people will draw heavily on the resources of our cities. In today’s entitlement society, we can be sure that they will be expecting to be taken care of, especially when you consider that these people will be coming from the coastal enclaves, left-leaning areas of our country. They are used to having the government take care of them and will expect the same, wherever they go.

You and I may be forced to defend ourselves against our fellow citizens. But don’t be mistaken; there won’t be a total absence of law and order. We won’t be allowed to defend ourselves with impunity. Each and every act of self-defense will end up being investigated, as the “aggrieved” parties seek justice for what they have suffered. In other words, they’re going to try and sue our pants off.

How Can We Defend Ourselves?

The question we must ask ourselves, is how do we defend ourselves in such circumstances? I don’t just mean defend ourselves from violence either. While we will probably need to be ready to defend ourselves from violence, we will also need to be ready to defend ourselves legally, as well as defending our property against damage and theft. We must be ready to defend all aspects of our lives.

Of course firearms and the training to use them properly is an important ingredient in this. But that should be a resource of last resort. You don’t have to answer to the charges of shooting someone, if you don’t shoot. So, it’s a good rule of thumb to only shoot, if you’re being shot at.

Better than that, let’s avoid getting shot at. How? By making ourselves unattractive targets. The last thing we want to do is to make it look like we’re a potential source for whatever they need. Normal OPSEC plays an important part here; but we should also take a page from the book of those who teach on home security. That is, we should make our homes look like uninviting targets. Most specifically, we should do everything we can to avoid the appearance of affluence, hiding our toys and valuables from sight.

In addition to this, we need to make our homes difficult to break into. I’m not talking about just deadbolts here, but rather the kinds of things I’ve written about before; things which aren’t just intended to keep the honest people honest, but rather to keep the dishonest people out. Fortify your home, so that these people can’t just kick open your door; then you won’t have to fight them.

This may not be a popular viewpoint, but if you are forced to defend your home and family, you’ve already lost one battle. You’ll end up with your name and your reputation dragged through the mud, as the attackers try to play victim and blame it all on you. Facts may very well get distorted or even lost in such cases, with the result of you facing charges for doing nothing more than what the law allows. That’s something you want to avoid.

Above all, you need to be there for your family. That might very well mean arranging things so you don’t have to fight. To me, that’s the big win. Not winning because I drew faster or shot straighter than the other guy.

Written by

Bill White is the author of Conquering the Coming Collapse, and a former Army officer, manufacturing engineer and business manager. More recently, he left the business world to work as a cross-cultural missionary on the Mexico border. Bill has been a survivalist since the 1970s, when the nation was in the latter days of the Cold War. He had determined to head into the Colorado Rockies, should Washington ever decide to push the button. While those days have passed, the knowledge Bill gained during that time hasn’t. He now works to educate others on the risks that exist in our society and how to prepare to meet them. You can send Bill a message at editor [at] survivopedia.com.

Latest comments
  • Some excellent points! I would like to know your thoughts on how climate change is or could be affected by weather modification. We know that weather modification/manipulation has been used at least since the Vietnam war in what was known as “Operation Popeye” and continues today through various programs such as those conducted by HAARP technogies or Weather Modification Inc. Knowing this, how can we know, using your example, if Hurricane Katrina was actually a naturally occuring event that caused people to leave the area or if it was orchestrated by a weather manipulation program?

  • For years I’ve been trying to get our county to wake up to being prepared for an EMP which will leave us even worse off than what you just pointed out. The best you can do is to be prepared for just about any situation, and it takes several years to do it.

  • tilt of earth axis also causes change

    • Yes it does and it is a little over mid way in its wobble form 22.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees. That shift or wobble is on a 25 thousand year cycle closely following ice ages. Perhaps if there is global warming we may get spared the ice age that scientists thought was going to happen back in the 70’s until the globalists decided they could scare more people with global warming religion.

      As you search pay particular attention to the way global warmists treat the fact that antarctica is growing and cattle are currently dying on South American winters because it has gotten so cold in the past couple decades. While the North Pole is warming.

      Our worlds wobble will get you every time!!

  • Bill, I too do not believe the climate change conspiracy… that’s what it is. A conspiracy to get people to buy into something we can’t afford. It’s all about controlling the masses.

    Anyway, what I do believe in is sun cycles. Too long for a short explanation. But, if you have the time, check out a youtube channel called “suspicious observers”, and check out their “earth catastrophe cycle” videos. It’s long and involved, but, it pretty much explains everything that’s going on with the earth and sun.

  • I found the comment about changes in Earth’s orbit of particular interest especially in light of other discussions postulating a planetary alignment that may affect Earth’s orbit occurring in 2024. I have read a profusion of material debating all sorts of topics and it is truly daunting to, as you say, sort the wheat from the chaff. Whatever the actual causes may be, and it seems that there are several in play simultaneously, one of the most useful articles I have read took the view that we need to move past a “sustainability” model for policy formation and start to accept the fact that changes are occurring that cannot be “stopped” or “reversed” (whether that is because we have passed a theoretical “tipping point” or because the changes are of a sort that we can’t affect them in any event (eg Earth’s orbit, solar cycles, alterations in Earth’s magnetism) or otherwise) and we need to be thinking in terms of “adaptation”. The changes are indeed occurring and we need to figure out how to adapt to those changes, the point being that Earth’s/the solar system’s own dynamism pays no attention to the life forms inhabiting it.. At the local level I see signs where the adaptive paradigm is being adopted but mostly as a reaction to emergent circumstances, not as a forward looking paradigm. At the highest level of policy formation, the U.N., that is not happening at all. This is a crucially important debate as it affects how the international legal environment looks at factors such as mass migration of populations affected by change and seems to suppose that the effects of change will not be be universally disruptive. Consider for a minute the effect on the United States if changes resulted in a relocation of the population of Florida and the Carolinas alone (and it won’t just be Florida…look at New Orleans and Oakland as further examples). The internal displacement of several million of one’s own citizens will be massively disruptive all on its own (not just in terms of population but also in terms of lost resources and infrastructure left behind in the abandoned regions). Just look back at the social effect of the droughts that caused the migrations out of Oklahoma last century and that occurred at a time when populations were not nearly as high, the numbers of migrants much lower than should be expected today, the effect of the “climate event” not nearly so widespread or so long lasting, Good article. The need for the kind of information and perspective that you provide is only increasing.

  • About the Arctic Ice melting. I have an experiment for you to do. It’s pretty simple.

    Take a 4 cup measuring cup. Fill it with 1 cup of Ice (that will be our Icebergs) Then fill the measuring cup to the 4 cup line with water. Wait awhile as the ice melts. After the ice melts has the water line gone past the 4 cup line? Answer NOPE.
    The same thing with Melting Sea Ice. It could ALL melt and NOTHING would happen.

    • Yup. Agree 100%.. Different story with the Antarctic ice though. If that ALL melted then the oceans would definitely rise. But that’s not going to happen any time soon unless we had a crustal displacement and Antarctica ended up near the equator. In our arrogance we think we can control everything including the climate. Good luck with that. As the oceans seem to be slowly rising why aren’t all the coastal cities, in danger of inundation, starting to build sea walls which will protect the cities just as the Netherlands are protected from the ocean by dykes?

  • I believe there is something to climate change. I don’t go all the way over to cows farting, but perhaps some of it is true. Now very similar to the concept of there ain’t no atheists in the foxhole, doing something now is better than living it later and regretting not acting. I see it as an act of prepping the planet. We just have to compromise between doing nothing and doing everything.

  • What gets labeled “Climate Denier” is actually Crisis Denier. Yes, the planet’s climate his warmed and cooled in cycles for thousands of years. Recall ice ages, as you suggest. After the ice, the planet warmed up. Ocean levels rose. Coastlines receded. That’s what happens. The big difference between the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 A.D.) and now, is that we have huge cities built on those coastlines and millions of people living there. Everyone seemed to be assuming that the coastlines would never-ever move again.

    A subset of politicians are selling the crisis as a means to a political end, and very little more.. One of the hallmarks of a scam is the scammery trying to rush you into make a decision. Telling everyone that they’ve only got 12 years left (so vote for the Green New Deal) is getting that scammer’s rush. You have every right to be suspicious.

    Be ready for change, yes. Run screaming into the arms of despotism, no.

  • FLAPrepper 1. You are correct using the analogy of ice cubes to icebergs. The glaciers melting aren’t ice bergs though. They are melting in to streams which then flow to rivers all over the world. Which as our friends in the midwest have learned creates flooding. Which causes seas to rise when they drain in to the sea. If the ice is already floating over water, as in a sea shelf, they are in fact ice cubes/icebergs in the making. The problem is that when they are gone, the ice over land will start to melt. This will add to sea level rise. Think of sea ice as our insurance for stopping sea level change. Once it’s gone we won’t be able to stop the seas from rising. It also will affect sea life and land habitats of an ecosystem (you are already seeing that in the Arctic).

  • There’s so much that can be said about this, Bill, but it’s just going to open up a HUGE can of worms. I’m with you, Bill, as far as being a “climate change denier”. We obviously know it’s happening but we’re not quite sure why and now in a futile attempt to stem the tide of climate change some countries have imposed a carbon tax. Another tax levied on companies. I really don’t think that us humans are the primary cause of this so-called climate change. We may not be helping the climate by our activities but I sincerely believe there are other natural forces at work affecting the climate. The climate changes naturally. Sometimes it’s colder. Sometimes warmer. Sometimes more CO2. Sometimes less. And if you look into the historical levels of CO2 there does NOT seem to be a direct correlation between CO2 levels and global temps. No one has mentioned the Milankovitch cycle. Which has a much greater affect on our climate than anything we can do. And just to be clear, Bill, I really don’t like correcting people. The Arctic ice has nothing to do with rising ocean levels as the ice is ALREADY in the water. Different story with Antarctica though. And one time I went through the exercise of figuring out how much water it would take to raise the ocean levels by even one inch. It’s one hell of a crap load of water! I also know that you have to take everything on the internet with a huge grain of salt. Having said that I ran across a you tube video of a lady Russian scientist that made a very good case for the earth going into a super maximum solar minimum starting shortly. Is she right? Maybe. We’ll have to wait and find out. Maybe this is what we’re all preparing for. Not EMP. Not any kind of global warfare but just a simple ice age lasting a few hundred years. A baby ice age. But even a baby ice age would put a bit of a crimp in the global economy. 😉 You never know. Maybe it would bring people together. Fighting a common foe.

LEAVE A COMMENT