This is a classic example of what I am trying to show, that this “climate change” issue is more than meets the eye. It is about using any tactic possible to push an agenda that is regressive and seeks to LIMIT what man can do, rather than expand. This article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sarah-mcinerney-climate-change-will-be-deadlier-than-covid-19-lstrdl6t7 tries to scare the daylights out of people who are already scared with an implication not supported by any facts today. We are all anxious about the unknown with this virus, so here we go, the predictable use of climate to scare people even more. But the facts are clear on climate over the last 100 years, the results on mankind are EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Which is even more remarkable given the growth of human life.

I guess if the Covid-19 completely fizzles out, which is also a possibility, then anything that happens in the weather globally over the next 20 years that is blamed for deaths, means perhaps it would be eclipsed. But the facts reveal that man’s adaptation via freedom, competition and capitalism, which is leading the way, is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening!

And that journalist whom are writing things like this choose to ignore the facts, or have not researched it enough to see another side. Which speaks volumes as to the amount of trust one should put into any agenda that involves narrow-minded one-sidedness.

Instead of writing thousands of words I will use a few choice charts. What I want to know, is why people that write this stuff do not have the intellectual curiosity or the journalistic integrity to do what journalists are supposed to do: Question and show both sides of the issue. It is because the lack of those qualities, we are reading what we are reading.

So here we go, in direct defiance of what is implied in the above article, Climate deaths are plummetting

Now why, if you knew this, would you write what you did? Why did you not look at least for the countering argument?

Now watch this. Personal GDP globally and Life Expectancy globally:

This means MORE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND PROSPERING MORE! When did this hockey stick like skyrocket start? At the start of the fossil fuel era.

Now consider this, and do not think this is minimizing the COVID 19 threat, the median age of deaths is in the low 80s. But if this virus appeared in the pre-fossil fuel era, it may have gone virtually unnoticed BECAUSE of LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PRE -FOSSIL FUEL ERA was between 30 and 40.

From this article, the chart below:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy#life-expectancy-has-improved-globally

The ramping up to the current levels can be linked, if not directly then indirectly, to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era. The ramping up to the current levels can be linked, if not directly then indirectly, to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era.

When one reads anything, including what I write, one needs to look at both sides. The fact is that the vast majority of articles written on this matter do not bring up countering points and use the assumption that there is no counter, or someone is a science denier. Yet charts like this show that people are saying they deny the facts any 5th grader can see. (I use 5th grade since that population age group and around is getting the wits scared out of them with climate change.)

What is being done today, though in articles like the one that spawned this counter, is to make statements that run contrary to what has been going on. With no thinking beyond a set agenda? When you are narrow-minded, your field of vision is extremely limited and what is being revealed in a lot of things has to do with this subject. Which is the narrow mindedness and intolerant views of people who should be doing the opposite, if they are indeed journalists.

In this case, the facts about climate deaths and the advancement of mankind run contrary to what is being implied. The fact that IF NOT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY brought about with the help of the fossil fuel era may not have even been noticed in the late 19th century. Since life expectancy was about half of what it is today.

As always, I ask the rational reader to consider the other side of the issue. To remind people, as per the previous piece I wrote, to be on guard against any event being blamed on “climate change”. For “climate change” is actually a vehicle for another result. At the very least, consider the actual data presented here.

Furthermore, all you journalists that are using the entirety of great tools we have today, try to look at both sides of the issue. You might come to realize that where you stand today was built yesterday and the fossil fuel era, the freedoms we enjoy, is in a large part responsible for the foundation we have built to give you the chance. Don’t take that for granted! Question in all you do. Facts like what I have shown above, indicate that there is a reason to look at both sides of an issue. Be open-minded, tolerant and don’t accuse those, that bring up ideas you may not have seen, of being someone they are not (example Climate Denier). But writing scare articles using what is admittedly a scary virus, and then saying, “climate change” is something worse, without showing people where we are today on the matter and the actual data, is not being open-minded nor tolerant of contrary ideas.