Warning

I hate propoganda, and I hate it even more when it comes from what is supposedly a free press as we in the United States are said to have. I realize that climate change is a problem, but it also is being blown out of proportion for some end goal that is not for the best. Every storm has the Chicken Littles out there screaming, each fire is used to scare the little kids into thinking that the end of the world is just around the corner. Rational analysis is what is called for, not the fearmongering that the New York Times in particular indulges in. It's so obvious to me. Climate changes all the time, and while the planet suffers, it also adapts, which we should also be able to do. Is the ultimate goal a one-world government? I don't relish that possibility. Each nation does such a poor job running their little patch of ground that to think one government could take care of it all is frightening. So each wildfire season in the American West from now on will receive an unhealthy dose of scare tactics, when the real problem is that people are living where they shouldn't, and the forests have been mismanaged for years, allowing massive amounts of tinder to build up for the fires to feed on. Every hurricane is a sign of the end, even though none of these storms have come close to matching the ferocity of Hurricane Camille back in 1969. I am reminded of Mark Twain's remark that there are 3 kinds of lies: 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'. All 3 kinds are plentiful in the reporting of the Earth's dire fate, as well as the rhetoric of our leaders. Just once, I would like to hear a reporter ask Joe Biden what existential means. But it won't happen today. The reporters of the past were brave, while our current lot are sheep, trained to bleat out the talking points approved by their even more cowardly editorial staffs. The forecasts made for our future are lacking in logic concerning matters beyond the control of any government. They also lack any imagination, for what of possible catastrophes, most likely volcanic, that could cause the Earth to cool? They point a straight line only, which is usually always wrong, as seen by the warnings in the past about population growth. Also, the ultimate answer, namely developing Tesla's idea for free energy, is never a part of the conversation. If the use of hydrocarbons for energy has caused this potential disaster, then ultimately it is the fault of the banksters. They bankroll the energy companies, earning massive amounts in interest, and I am sure if given the choice between the health of the Earth and the health of their bottom line, the Earth will always be the loser.