We have all heard the anecdote.

"Increased[?] emissions[?] of greenhouse gases[?] have caused[?] temperatures to rise[?], which are causing[?] catastrophic events[?] all over the world[?]". source

The [?] is my addition and highlights the ambiguity of each word. There are 8 variables to be qualified, in what appears to be a straightforward statement. Each variable in the statement requires thorough research and experimentation, from qualified by experts in that particular field of science, with no conflict of interest. Then subjected to the adverse scrutiny of skeptics until finally it can be accepted as a scientific theory.

It is hard to prove any theory true, but you can disprove what is false; leaving an assumption which may eventually be updated, if and when new discoveries are made. There can be problems with this, if evidence which contradicts a theory is overlooked or suppressed.

Unless you have the time and expertise to fully research and understand every last variable and the necessary scientific methods involved, you are accepting a broad, sweeping statement on face value. You are asked to 'TRUST THE SCIENCE'.

Impending doom, such as described in the above statement, are ideal circumstances for implementing wide ranging change. It engenders an unrealistic fear that we lack the self control needed to protect our climate. And instead offers to grant new powers to the political class, who in turn create more surveillance ability for technocrats; to determine how high taxation is raised, in order to engineer the consumption habits of the body politic.

Who amongst us has sufficient honour to apportion the allotted 'carbon ration' with perfect impartiality? Who has the wisdom to police natural gas, and its location in the ecosystem at any given time? To standardise sunshine with Solar Radiation Management? Which school of mathematics can estimate the sum a politician can reasonably confiscate from our income in order to manage the weather? Who has the purity to act above self interest and corruption? Who has the arrogance to appoint themselves custodians of a solar system?

Being alive has direct impact upon your surroundings, you and your environment cannot be separated. One shapes the other and vice versa. The dominant narrative of Climate Catastrophism pathologises humanity unfairly. I've never met anyone who wants to ruin the world. Caring for one's environment is essential. 'Don't foul in your own backyard' was first realised by cavemen who soon learned not to excrete in small enclosures where we eat, sleep and socialise.

For all the noise of imminent calamity, there is also conflicting data. Error, exaggeration and deliberate falsification is not unrealistic. We needn't reject the claims of scientists, journalists, activists or politicians. To protect ourselves from catastrophe or exploitation we demand the principles of rigorous investigation are met. Until we determine the exact quality of our predicament in a transparent public forum, predictions of disaster and extinction can be confidently dismissed in favour of a calm, rational appreciation of circumstances.

Whatever the state of our complex planetary climate, or our impact upon it; if we need solutions, they must protect the individual from undue influence, excessive interference and authoritarian control. The sooner all fantastic claims have been tested beyond all reasonable doubt in an OPEN SOURCE PUBLIC TRIBUNAL; the sooner we can consider our personal options:

Convenience & Dictatorship or Responsibility & Freedom.

Video presented without comment from: Climate Discussion Nexus