How many times do we need to get burned before we realize that fire is hot and how many failed climate predictions do we need to live through before we realize that climate alarmism is a solution looking for a problem - making it not the solution, but the problem itself? How can climate science be settled when there are still credible experts in the field poking holes in the “climate crisis” hypothesis? Remember that little thing called the “scientific method”? If you truly believe in what these nihilistic climate alarmist are asserting, then I challenge you to challenge them to comprehensively quantify the problem. If I am incorrect and the science truly is settled, then quantifying the problem should be a no-brainer, right? If you want me to believe the sky is falling because of cow farts, then I’m going to need a whole lot more than an entertainer who’s a multimillionaire flying in on their private jet to give a speech about how the coast is going to fall into the ocean if I don’t start eating synthetic meat, but they still purchased beachfront property. I make it a point to call the game fair and when something is true I acknowledge it and adjust my worldview accordingly, but when something looks like 💩 and smells like 💩, I got no problems calling it 💩.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/09/22/climate-change-effect-on-public-transportation-infrastructure-to-cost-billions-fao.html?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral

ON PODCAST: https://anchor.fm/lightbulbinitiative/episodes/CLIMATE-ALARMISM-A-SOLUTION-LOOKING-FOR-A-PROBLEM-e1o8q95