Occasionally, an event or sequence of events occurs that has never been witnessed before (or recorded before), such as the exceptional hurricane season in the Atlantic in 2005. Yet even that could be part of natural climate variability. If such a season does not recur within the next 30 years, we would look back and call it an exceptional year, but not a harbinger of change. Only a persistent series of unusual events taken in the context of regional climate parameters can suggest a potential change in climate has occurred.[1]World Meteorological Organization

Our experiences with, and observations of, wide-spread lies, coercion, and propaganda psyops concerning SARS-CoV-2 and “The Great Reset” have prompted the Ecology Party to rethink our position on “climate change,” formerly known as “global warming.” 

In the past few years, we have witnessed incredible lies about the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 and its gain-of-function origins. Forcing deadly treatments such as ventilators and the toxic and expensive drug Remdesivir on unsuspecting patients ultimately resulted in the death of thousands, and hospitals were given financial incentives by the government to use those deadly protocols. Safe, cheap, and efficacious drugs saved thousands of lives and could have saved many more, but the medical/governmental/global complex unrelentingly lied, censored information about them, and prevented their use. Those medical professionals using and promoting older anti-viral drugs and even non-drug protocols were vilified, ridiculed, and silenced. Doctors were, and are still, threatened with losing their licenses for pursuing thinking that challenged the so-called vaccines or pharmaceutical mainstream. Had alternative treatments been acknowledged, they would have obviated the Emergency Use Authorization of never-before-used experimental gene transfer injections. That interruption in cash flow could not be permitted. 

Recent revelations of the extent of that heinous collaboration between politicians, FBI, CDC, WHO, AMA, and others, with social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook are just the tip of the iceberg, and without Elon Musk, we’d still be without proof. We may never get the truth from the other Big Tech players.

The so-called vaccine has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths[2] and the vaccinated are more likely to die of what we prefer to call the Fauci virus, than the unvaccinated[3].

Nevertheless, people are being denied organ transplants because they do not want the shots; it is apparently more important to enforce compliance than to save lives. This psychotic authoritarianism is the dominant state of allopathic medicine worldwide.

What does the virus have to do with climate change? Barbarity, fear-mongering, and mind-control techniques have made the leadership of the Ecology Party increasingly skeptical of any agenda vigorously and unrelentingly pushed by government and mainstream media, in collusion with Big Tech.  When there is neither room nor tolerance for alternative opinions, it seems only prudent to be suspicious. We would be fools not to learn from harmful mistakes.

We, therefore, find ourselves increasingly skeptical of current narratives and pressures around “climate change.” We are reminded more and more of the playbook used during SARS-CoV-2. The “Green New Deal” is, we believe, a front for a more sinister agenda of globalization and authoritarian control, just as we experienced during SARS-CoV-2. 

There has been an incredible amount of attention given to Global Warming/Climate Change over the last ten years or so. We were on that bandwagon until the similarities between the “pandemic” and the climate panic became blatantly obvious. 

The exact same entities and the exact same tactics are being used to manipulate us; our skepticism has been aroused.

We find it particularly difficult to take seriously the pronouncements of elite governmental and celebrity “climate activists” who travel the world on private jets (one of the most carbon-intensive modes of travel), live in huge energy-hogging houses, and drive in limousines and gigantic SUVs. When confronted with the hypocrisy of the difference between his climate alarmism and lifestyle, John Kerry, for example replied it was the “only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.” Draw your own conclusions about how serious these people are about sacrificing their comfort and privileges to win the “battle,” (though they are very eager to sacrifice yours). [4]

Worldwide, governments and major media outlets have decreed that there will be no debate on the theory that humans, mostly from our use of fossil fuels, are the cause of the apparent rise in global temperatures. Just as we heard before that their “Covid” conclusions were “settled science,” they tell us the same about climate change. Well, scientific “truths” are never settled unless they are allowed to be tested and unless alternative, dissenting, voices are permitted to enter the debate. That has not been the case with climate change alarmism.[5] The mainstream media will disparage anyone with an alternative viewpoint as a “climate denier” and any finding contrary to the mainstream narrative is labeled “disinformation.” If a climate scientist wants to remain at a major university or get funding for a project, there can often be no doubt of the findings before the study even begins.

We believe it’s incredibly stupid to relegate the production of oil and gas to other countries with far less stringent environmental controls than we have here in the United States. If the playing field were level, oil, gas, and coal extracted from Russia, China, Venezuela, and the United States would all have the same environmental footprint. Yet we know that far from being equal, mining done in other countries is many times more harmful than that done in this country, since environmental laws in most other countries do not exist, are far less stringent, and/or are not enforced. Buying oil from the Middle East is not logical as a short term bridge to renewable energy. In fact, our EPF position is that it is better to produce our own fossil fuels than to buy them from others. It is absurd to obtain oil from countries with horrible human rights and equally terrible environmental records while leaving our oil in the ground. The reality is, like it or not, we are dependent on oil and wishing and acting as if we were not is preposterous. Far better to be producing oil here where we can control its environmental footprint. 

Now, let us turn to the potential remedies to the issue of Global Warming. First, the mainstream narrative is that only government intervention can save us from global catastrophe. We do not buy this. We must critically examine the facile solutions proposed to see if they, in fact, make any sense or are just more propaganda. 

For example, we have the Democrats and environmental Gang Green touting the absurdity that manufacturing electric vehicles will magically fix everything. EVs take an incredible amount of resources, many from third-world countries where child labor is exploited [6] and there are zero environmental safeguards. [7] EVs use toxic batteries with attendant disposal problems. They indirectly use coal, gas, oil, and even worse, nuclear power. The Ecology Party strongly promotes using ingenuity and know-how to retrofit older cars to make them more efficient. We also support use of spent vegetable oils and alternative fuels, excluding ethanol.

Next, consider the ludicrous notion that if we just used wind and solar our problems would disappear. There is simply no way that civilization can quickly transition to renewable energy without major disruptions to economies and cultures. Banning fossil fuels in North America and Europe before real alternative energy sources are developed will merely be the death knell of Western civilization as we know it (which increasingly seems to be the goal). Additionally, while the West has continued to reduce greenhouse gasses year over year (without government intervention), China and India, in fact, have INCREASED their consumption of the most horrific fossil fuels such as coal. This, in spite of the Paris Accords that apparently some people believe will be a solution. 

Blasting surveys for off-shore wind farms are linked to deaths of whales. [8] Wind turbines take enormous inputs to manufacture and are not recyclable. [9] When their useful lives are over, they are buried in landfills. Similar disposal problems exist for solar panels. [10]

The raw energy and materials used in manufacturing wind and solar energy devices need to be subtracted from the benefits of these renewable sources.

Another issue with wind and solar is that a successful method of energy storage has yet to be found. California has recently enacted a law banning internal combustion autos in favor of electric cars. How will this impact those who cannot afford electric cars? And what will California do with the BILLIONS of lithium batteries which will inevitably be produced? [11]

Continuing the topic of storage, no country on Earth has solved one of the major problems with nuclear power, that of what to do with spent fuel rods. This is one of many reasons why the Ecology Party does not support the production of nuclear power, although many are now proposing INCREASING nuclear energy as somehow being a sensible solution. We adamantly oppose nuclear power which is corporate socialism writ large. Additionally, water vapor produced by nuclear power is a greenhouse gas. 

It is universally acknowledged that there have been, and will continue to be, major temperature fluctuations of the Earth’s temperature. So the largest questions are: How much impact does human activity have on global temperatures? And, if so, how high might the planetary temperature rise, and what will be the effects?

Truthfully, no one today knows the answers to these questions. Climate scientists have continued to model potential outcomes based on various scenarios, and they will no doubt continue that trend. But one MUST ask, who is funding these modeling studies, what is to be gained, and might the results of each study depend on meeting the expectations of particular individuals or groups?

We see many articles, for example, touting the apparent near-term loss of all Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. Here is one recent article from NASA:

Ice Sheets – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sep 1, 2022: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA. … Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.

And yet that same scientific organization put out THIS article:

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. … “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, …

So, can BOTH studies be correct at the same time? If the Antarctic ice sheet gained significantly over a fifteen-year period, how worried should we be if the ice sheet should lose area over a different fifteen-year period? Why does one story receive large amounts of media attention, while the other is buried in page 23 (if it’s published at all)? We’ve all heard countless guesses that the ice sheets would melt by 2010….2015…2020. A very good discussion with a climate scientist can be found here on this complicated subject.

Here is an article from Long Range Weather that strikes a balance between natural and possible human causes of climate change. 

We encourage our supporters to read it, and trust that you, too will realize that the issue of climate change is much more complicated and nuanced than many radical environmentalists would have us believe.

The Ecology Party of Florida is not taking a position on the cause, or extent of climate change. We are merely attempting to encourage rigorous debate and want ALL theories and data to have a fair hearing. We have not changed our position on nuclear power, fracking, or over-consumption. Our dedication to environmental protection is unwavering, but we still remain open-minded on the many issues surrounding climate science. The Ecology Party still believes that individuals can be instrumental in preserving our planetary diversity by actions both private and public. Each of us needs to step up to reduce our own environmental footprint, and at all cost avoid depending on a fickle national government to save us from ourselves. The best way to slow human effects on the planet is to reduce ALL consumption. We encourage every consumer (which is ALL of us!) to think twice before buying anything new, and where possible to buy used and locally produced products less harmful to the environment.