Utah has a proud tradition of scientific inquiry and translation of the results
into technology. Think silicon slopes. Regarding a topic about which
"merchants of doubt" (think the tobacco industry in the 60s and 70s)
have successfully spread so much misinformation, I'm encouraged to see
Doug Wilks come down on the side of sound scientific evidence. Like our
successful silicon slopes, we will be successful tackling climate change by
heeding and using the best evidence that our dedicated scientists can discover.
Silo says, "Cite any published, peer-reviewed study that refutes
man's contribution to accelerated global warming and climate change.Just one.We'll wait"DN doesn't
allow for links. What is your email address so I can send? Please be prepared,
because it doesn't look good for the alarmists. I'm very sorry.
@flipphone"There is no Man made climate change occurring"Cite any published, peer-reviewed study that refutes man's contribution
to accelerated global warming and climate change.Just one.We'll wait.
There is no Man made climate change occurring.
@EscherEnigma:"Ironically, while your comment may be
"witty" and earn you "likes", it doesn't actually match the
facts on the ground. Fact is, this has been a partisan debate in America since
before the "like" existed."I wasn't trying for a
"like". And it wasn't intended to be witty. It was more intended
as a lament. And although I will readily concede that partisan
debate has been a permanent fixture, even before social media, I will continue
to lament that something that *might* have brought moderates together has
instead further divided us. But my point was, and still is, that
rational debate isn't rewarded with likes. It turns out that this is the
same problem with our politicians. Rational, moderate politicians generally
don't win primaries, at least not in areas that will consistently vote for
the same party no matter what. And it's these long-serving Senators and
Representatives who become the party leadership. When we start
rewarding rational politicians for being rational, and working with the opposing
party, we will start to make real progress. Until then, we progress in spite of
our leadership, not because of it.
Those here, including the author, who claim confidently that CO2 produced by
burning of fossil fuels will cause catstrophic consequences and mass death, I
feel for you. I know you are trying to be good stewards of the planet. I can
sense your fear for our future, and our children's future. I appreciate
your concern. Thank you. However, there is no current observational
evidence that supports the notion that human produced CO2 is causing, or will
cause catastrophic death and carnage. I'm not talking models, I'm
talking observational data. I used Google scholar and PubMed. I'll be happy
to provide references to interested people, as DN doesn't allow links. From
my research: NO increased flooding, droughts, hurricane frequency, fires,
malaria, dengue, heat deaths, heat related hospitalizations, tornado frequency,
polar bear extinction, crop failures, warfare, coral bleaching, species
extinction, and the list goes on..While it IS true that most glaciers, the
arctic and Greenland ice are retreating, and temperature and sea levels are
rising. It is small and well within our planet's ability to adapt. There
simply is no runaway global warming happening. I'm sorry. The theory is
@SC Matt"Rationale debate doesn't earn likes. Extreme
positions earn likes, because it's seen as a contest, and the wittier or
more pointed your comment, the better the chances that somebody will say
"man, I wish I had said that" and then give you a like. "Ironically, while your comment may be "witty" and earn you
"likes", it doesn't actually match the facts on the ground. Fact
is, this has been a partisan debate in America since before the "like"
existed.The partisanship of the topic cannot be blamed on social
@2bits"Small broad changes made willingly would be much better than
big changes made by force/law.If everybody changed a little... it
would have more impact than forcing a few people to change a lot."Historically we've needed big pushes with aerosols (urban smog) and CFCs
(Montreal Protocol, dealt with ozone hole). Greenhouse gases cover such a
massively broad range of aspects in society that addressing it through voluntary
efforts would be way too slow an evolution. Now, that's not to say we need
to ruin the economy with a way too rapid change, nor does it mean shutting off
fossil fuels before the alternative is in place as some who would like to do
nothing pretend the GND would result in, but it does mean that we need to make
huge changes and mostly get off of non-renewable energy by around 2050. Perhaps
we could be a leading manufacturer of those new technologies.Unfortunately, leaving it to volunteering adjustments isn't sufficient on
its own. The US emitted 3.4% more greenhouse gases in 2018 compared to 2017.
It's time we children of the 50s, 60s and 70s humbly admit to the mess
we've left our descendants. Gratefully, we will eventually all be dead.
Then they can vote appropriately, roll up their sleeves and begin cleaning the
mess we've left. I hope they can forgive our hubris.
RE: "We have a generation of academics unwilling to admit how much they
don't know. And a generation of journalists who are easily led"...---I agree.People who don't know science think science
is decided and we have consensus now days. Nothing could be further from the
truth. With Science... the more you learn, the more you find out you
don't know.Everything we learn exposes 100 things we
didn't even know about before.When our probes arrived at Pluto
the data they sent back tossed everything we though we knew about the Universe
on it's head. It's been the same every step along the way. The more
we learn... the more we discover we don't understand.Turn off
the political talk shows and Watch "How the universe works" and other
programs on Smithsonian or Science Channel. There's WAY more we
don't understand than we understand about our universe. We are just
children in many ways (as far as Science and understanding or explaining the
Universe goes).We have some things figured out. But it's a
tiny percentage of what's going on in our universe. We still have a lot
to learn. The amount of things we still don't understand and can't
explain would boggle your mind.
I applaud her approach, and her optimism. Such a change from the usual
gloom-and-doom stories we get republished in the DesNews on Global Warming.The 2 parts I agree with most were buried at the bottom, but...1. Ekwurzel said she's not a fan of those who cry "Save the
Planet," noting almost matter-of-factly that "the planet will be
fine." and 2. Understanding our preferences and our behaviors is
necessary to making the small changes.I think it's about small
individual changes (made willingly), not huge government regulations like the
"New Green Deal" that mandate our behavior by force/law.It
doesn't have to be as drastic a change as America being 100% carbon free by
2030, even if it would destroy the economy and most American's jobs.Small broad changes made willingly would be much better than big changes
made by force/law.If everybody changed a little... it would have
more impact than forcing a few people to change a lot.So I'm
making the changes needed, and encourage others to make the changes needed.
They don't have to be huge. They don't have to destroy the economy
or cause massive population reductions. If we all do something, it would help.
desert pete has it right! I wonder why all of the scientific articles refuting
the premise of this article are never put forth by the media. AND THERE ARE
MANY, IF YOU SEARCH.
@NeifyT"Mitigation may be "helpful" but so far all the efforts
toward mitigation are going nowhere. You say that adaptation proposals are
needed. But where are they? "Iowa gets 35% of its energy from
wind power. Iceland 100% (geothermal), Norway 97% Brazil 80% Canada 65% (hydro),
Denmark 60% (hydro and wind). US rates are a lot lower but we went from 13.65%
in 2015 to 17.65% in 2018 with solar doubling from 2015-2017.Adaptation includes things like the coastal walls built in Miami to reduce
sunny day flooding from sea level rise.@Bucketmouths"You
also failed to point out that scientists get billions of dollars in grants each
year for their research. "You know what stops getting someone
federal research dollars? Shoddy research. Which is why a grand conspiracy of
thousands and thousands of scientists around the world isn't the case,
because it'd never work, because people like being correct and most
scientists would say no to something if it were to be false.
@EscherEngima:"Well, this comment section demonstrated perfectly
why American isn't having a rationale debate on this topic."Rationale debate doesn't earn likes. Extreme positions earn
likes, because it's seen as a contest, and the wittier or more pointed your
comment, the better the chances that somebody will say "man, I wish I had
said that" and then give you a like. But as to the actual
argument with climate change, it would really help matters if we would just
replace coal-fired power with nuclear power. Oh, and save natural gas for home
heating fuel. If we're going to burn natural gas (and create CO2), we
might as well use 95% of the heat and expel 5% as exhaust instead of 50%
conversion to electricity and expel the other 50% to the environment.
@unrepentant progressive "...what we know...""It
isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so
many things that aren't so." -- Ronald Reagan@Twin Lights
"And, is this just a conspiracy?"No. It is speculation. The
hypothesis has not been validated. Levels of certainty are exaggerated. We have
a generation of academics unwilling to admit how much they don't know. And
a generation of journalists who are easily led.
It is a toss up who is worse, the Politicians and media who promote Climate
change nonsense, or the voters who believe them.
Well, this comment section demonstrated perfectly why American isn't
having a rationale debate on this topic.As an aside? This
isn't a partisan topic in other countries. Pretty much everyone else in
the world accepts that the climate is changing and that it's our fault.
They can disagree over the appropriate reactions and solutions without denying
that it's happening. In America, we can't seem to do that.
@Frozen Fractals - "Adaptation. Both mitigation and adaptation proposals are
needed."Mitigation may be "helpful" but so far all the
efforts toward mitigation are going nowhere. You say that adaptation proposals
are needed. But where are they? All I ever hear day in and day out on any news
article on any website or from any source is "reduce emissions" and
changing behaviors unto that end -- such as: drive cars less, get rid of lights,
stop using electricity, etc. etc. etc.There is NEVER any talk about
adaption. The closest is the push toward other forms of energy; adapting our
energy production, but even that is really only more of the same of the above.
Different forms of energy that supposedly put less CO2 into the atmosphere.
(Though in the long run they put more there; only at the production phase
instead of the end user phase.)So, again where are the adaptation
proposals? There simply aren't any because there is no money to be made
with adaptation; only money to be made pushing the fear of CO2 and hence how to
control people's lives by selling them new products to supposedly lessen
their "carbon footprint."
Huge snow storms in New York are not climate change. Fires in California are
not climate change. Floods in the mid-west are not climate change. As we are
always told, climate change deals with changes over thousands and millions of
years. As referenced above....one sign of climate change was the melting of the
great north-American ice sheet 15,000 years ago. It is still melting, slowly.
What caused the climate to change 15,000 years ago? What caused the last
hundred ice ages to come and go over the last millions of years? Did humans
cause this? Cows? Herds of elk? I like clean air and water as much as anyone
but it is ridiculous to considered spending trillions of dollars to fix
something that is mostly controlled by changes in the energy output of the sun
along with changes in the earth's axis. Good luck changing those. The
so-called science changes daily. Reasoned approaches with reasonable
expenditures and expectations make the most sense.
Doug, Your appeal to authority is a weak argument. How many times
have "authorities" been wrong? Many times. You also failed to point
out that scientists get billions of dollars in grants each year for their
research. Scientists must show the change in natural variability and they
havent't been able to do so.
"So far, the only factors causing mass refugee problems are: 1. The
collapse and failure of socialist states2. The oppression and displacement
of large numbers by radical Islam."Really?And right
there we see a perfect example of the kind of factual ignorance that drives
denial of scientific evidence.
Like the many slaughters we endure in this country, when it comes to climate
change inevitability, what we are really left with is: "thought and
prayers".I am tired of reading political comments which relate
to science relegating what we know about the changes occurring in the
world's climate and environment. Like mass murders, it is apparently the
political judgements that reign in this country rather than fact.Fact is, weapons of mass murder mean more mass murder. Ignoring the ongoing
effects of human activity (and there are billions more of us here) on the
environment means more deleterious damages to the planet. And the
governing opinion in our country is to ignore that and offer us only platitudes.
Not solutions to problems.
I'm almost 70 and I can't ever remember when there weren't forest
fires during times of drought and flooding in the midwest. Just saying.
It works like this. If you tell me I can get 100 watts of light from a 14 watt
bulb that lasts 15 years, I'm there in a heartbeat.If you tell
me that if I separate my trash into two bins and the city will sell my
recyclables to lower my garbage collection cots, I am with you.If
you tell me this new washing machine will get my clothes clean and save me $200
a year on my utilities, I'm all in.But if you tell me there
will be a carbon tax and the money will go to the UN to spend it for me, you
lost me.And if you constantly harp that I'm not doing my part,
I will tune you out.Market forces work. Taxation and shaming
I love the comments stating that there is this issue or that issue that climate
scientists have not considered. Or that the climate is always changing and this
is just part of that. Armchair scientists who "know" far more than
those who dedicate their professional lives to the study of the climate.And, is this just a conspiracy? A worldwide conspiracy effectuated by
thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries and of nearly every culture and
language? Large scale conspiracies simply do not hold together.Will
addressing climate change cause us to lose our freedoms? Not if we approach
this by reasonable treaties. All nations remain sovereign just as they do for
every other treaty.Is it outside of our power to change the
direction of things. Of course not. But, it becomes harder with each passing
day that we leave it unaddressed.
What we are seeing now is weather. Let's talk in 500 years, that will be
I got a laugh out of the photo accompanying the article. Leftists (including the
vast majority of the press) have swallowed the global warming hoax hook line and
sinker.Forest fires caused by global warming? Check! Droughts?
Check! Floods? Check! Cold caused by warming? Check! The list of things leftists
claim is caused by global warming is endless, and therefore meaningless.Please quit the global warming propaganda.
So what is the surprise in this opinion? That there is hope if we just surrender
massive freedoms and lifestyle on the alter of manmade global warming and
empower Al Gore and his like to govern us?That is no surprise. It
fits the Narrative perfectly.The surprise would be to frankly
address the numerous scandals that have revealed the conspiracy of global
warming alarmists to inflate the danger to get public attention, to
"massage" the raw data to achieve desired conclusions, and to silence
and discredit any who disagree with either the claimed results or prescribed
solutions.When the powers that be give up their private jets,
downsize to one home half the current size (that would still be double what most
of us live in), go vegan themselves, give up their armed security, and stop
claiming tax deductions, using tax exempt.foundations, and instead voluntarily
pay double the taxes they currently do, we can discuss me making changes that
will reduce my quality of life far more than such changes would reduce
theirs.Until then, I have a church and am not interested in the
newly repackaged socialism under the guise of saving coastal real estate for NYC
@LledravMost of the climate research in the 70s was still saying warming.
The ones saying cooling had a reason for that concern. There had been a rapid
increase of aerosol emissions in the middle of the century and those have a
cooling impact (global dimming). However, they were also causing pollution
problems so they were regulated, quite effectively. Global emissions of aerosols
leveled off (increases in other countries balanced by decreases in North America
and Europe). But greenhouse gases, providing a warming influence, continued to
increase significantly globally.@NeifyT"That is no
solution,"Mitigation is a useful preventative measure." even according to them the earth will continue to warm even if we
immediately stopped 100% of emissions."It would continue warming
for a while but it would stabilize. The warming would be much lower than if we
continued high levels of emissions."Like how to build better
houses to withstand natural disasters; how to adapt to warmer temps; how to
raise adapted animals; etc. etc."Adaptation. Both mitigation and
adaptation proposals are needed.
Of course, they have to say there is hope. If they didn't objective
jounalists would call them out for their predictions since Silent Spring that
we'd all be dead, and NYC underwater, by 1985.Environmentalists
have been crying wolf for too long to be credible.
There can be little doubt that mankind does not cause pollutions on our planet.
We have industries that pollute the air, the water, and even the land. HOWEVER,
there there can also be little doubt that "climate change" is also a
NATURAL phenomenon that has been going on since the ice ages (or beyond). For
example, scientists have theorized how dinosaurs were wiped out by a powerful
meteor striking the earth. Others have theorized about volcanoes like Vesuvious
(sp). Still others have pointed out the effects of radiation outbursts from the
sun, and how they affect the earth's atmosphere. My point is, yes we can
do a better job of taking care of our planet, BUT the ultimate forces that most
directly affect our climate is in the hands of the All Mighty. And if you
don't believe in an All Mighty, then you MUST believe that we are all
doomed. But not to worry, I will be dead long before any thing serious happens,
ha, ha, ha.
@Laura Bilington "Now the same people are saying that we should not heed the
opinion of 97% of scientists...."This 97% figure has been
debunked every which way. It has no basis in fact. Please take a hard look at
the internals of any study that makes this claim. In particular, look at how the
sample group was selected.
@TheRealDJT - Sandy, UT Shall we address problems in order of priority
?*If* the sea level were to rise a few inches, or a meter, over the
next century, the logical solution would be the same as it has been throughout
all of the recovery since the last ice age: "move a little further
inland". So the property values of rich beachfront property owners would go
down. Hardly an existential crisis.According to Jane McAdam
Scientia Professor and Director of the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee
Law, UNSW and John Church Chair professor, UNSW roughly 100 million people live
within about a metre of current high tide level. The majority of
these people are living hand to mouth I don't think they care about
@Mainly Me"This is all assuming that "climate change" as is
rammed down our throats is actually a manmade problem. My question is: has any
of these noted scientists ever heard of climate oscillation?"Of
course they have. They're also well informed on the causes and time scales
of those and how they do not even remotely explain the warming we have seen over
the past century. The reason we know about@Sim0x"I’m
more worried about natural climate change than any changes brought on by a
.00012 change in the atmosphere."Natural climate change is
generally very slow with only rare instances of rapid change brought about by
significant events that leave paleoclimate records behind because of the scale
of change. That 120ppm change in the atmosphere (280 to 400ppm) over a century
is the same as the typical range in the over 100,000 year long Milankovitch
cycle (180 to 290ppm and back again).
Two words sum up their 1,500 page report: Junk science.We only have
to look at the tiny Great Salt Lake, and see that its minuscule size compared to
Lake Bonneville happened before "man made" factors were happening. And,
we have seen the lake level fluctuate considerably even in the less than 200
years during which records have been kept, both rising and falling but neither
correlated with "man made" activities.
I echo what @TimBehrend said: our planet may not become uninhabitable, but many
places on coasts or in desert areas like Phoenix or Las Vegas just might become
so. We're talking huge population displacements, destruction of
infrastructure, etc., by the end of this century.I find no comfort
in the fact that the climate across the earth over time has
"oscillated." Yes, it happens over long periods of time, but our use of
fossil fuels has significantly accellerated, if not caused, changes that will
rapidly transform our lives. I look forward to hearing the details
of this report in future Deseret News articles--the devil is, indeed, in those
"My question is: has any of these noted scientists ever heard of climate
oscillation? "Are you kidding Mainlyme? Have you actually ever
read a climate report. A vast portion of such reports are devoted to your
"oscillations". How do you make a prediction of what is not
"normal" without knowing and accounting for what is "normal"?As one posted states often...get educated.
Unrepentant Progressive: The reason why I state it that way is because I know
the direction the Socialists and progressives will take us unless it is stated
clearly. Socialism is no match for Capitalism for creating opportunity, wealth,
and personal freedom. If some citizens don't like fossil fuels, then they
shouldn't drive cars. If they don't want 'unlimited
extraction' of natural resources, then don't purchase those items that
come from those natural resources. It is pretty simple. Change the world by
changing your own habits first. Let Capitalism operate the way it has operated
for centuries; a way that has created more wealth and lifted more people out of
poverty than any nation in the history of mankind. Progressives and Socialists,
on the other hand, only accomplish their goals by restricting freedom. Solutions
by compelling others to think and act the way you act are counter productive.
The 'invisible hand' is the best economic system ever invented, United
Order excluded. But, then, in the United Order, you always retained control
over you private property and could leave anytime you wanted. It makes all the
difference in the world to be free.
I've never disagreed that the climate is changing. Guess what? It has
always been changing for millions of years... and in and out of cold and hot
cycles.And I believe also that man does and has polluted the
environment, something he should not do and has a responsibility to not do.What is quite questionable is man's ability to make significant
difference on climate change. His significant part of the equation is dubious.
If you have a different opinion, it isn't going to be posted. A person
convinced against their will, is still of their same opinion still.
Whether or not you feel like reducing greenhouse gasses will make a difference
in our current warming cycle, you should be very concerned about breathing these
gasses and their effects on your/our health. Raise your hand if you like our
dirty air in Utah. If every Utahn tried to make a difference in this
area, we would see a dramatic improvement in our air quality. Let's stop
making excuses to pollute and start taking individual accountability for our
part in our air quality. If you don't like breathing dirty air,
then let's stop making excuses.
In 1973 when I was a senior in high school we were required to do a report on
one of the three impending crises, which were: mass starvation from
overpopulation, depletion of oil supplies, or the coming ice age. There was no
shortage of information on any of these topics because the most respected
journals all had articles quoting what the "scientists" and
"experts" foresaw as inevitable catastrophes. I chose to do my report on
the "fact" that "experts" and "scientists" said oil
reserves would be depleted within 30 years. Oops, they were wrong. And oops,
they were wrong about the world not being able to feed its people, and oops they
were wrong about going into an ice age. I suspect that young people are
completely unaware of these failed predictions by "experts" and
"scientists" in the past. The Jews have a saying, "Man plans, and
Call me a skeptic, and here is why.Every time something bad happens
(this article mentions "devastating fires," "current flooding,"
and "arctic chill") it is immediately blamed on climate change. Yet,
anytime something good happens (above average wet years in Utah; nice balmy
weather, etc.) it is passed off as either occurring "despite" climate
change (not because of it) or "local weather is not global climate."Can't be both ways; and truly, if one look at history there has
ALWAYS been natural disasters and "extreme" weather events. They are NOT
more frequent now than they were before.Further, every time any so
called climate scientist gives any presentation about what to do about climate
change it always focuses on "reducing emissions." That is no solution,
even according to them the earth will continue to warm even if we immediately
stopped 100% of emissions.Why not focus on much better solutions?
Like how to build better houses to withstand natural disasters; how to adapt to
warmer temps; how to raise adapted animals; etc. etc. Ah, but scientists
don't make money if people come up with REAL solutions; they only make
money by fear mongering.
How many times in the last 50 years have we heard that the end of the world will
soon be upon us due to global warming, climate change etc? I remember Al Gore
saying we would be toast by the year 2000. Now, we only have 12 years left
because of computer models. The US, right now, emits less carbons than China,
Russia and India combined.
Remember back in 2013, when courts started overturning the laws restricting
same-sex marriage? There was zero evidence that permitting same sex marriage
and adoption laws was going to somehow hurt society, but many conservatives were
aghast. We shouldn't rush into this, they said. We should wait
(presumably for generations) for science to show us that the children won't
be hurt. Etc. etc. It boiled down to "I don't want to have to change
my opinion that lesser than me". Then marriage equality became
the law of the land and we have seen zero evidence that the results are anything
but positive.Now the same people are saying that we should not heed
the opinion of 97% of scientists who say that we have to reduce carbon emissions
to keep the planet from further destruction. It boils down to "I don't
want to give up the lifestyle that I'm comfortable with".Except that the stakes are much, much higher now. And it affects every single
person on the planet.
@marxist:" But I can tell you temperatures which force refugee forcing
migration are not optimal!"So far, the only factors causing mass
refugee problems are: 1. The collapse and failure of socialist states2. The oppression and displacement of large numbers by radical Islam.Shall we address problems in order of priority ? *If* the sea
level were to rise a few inches, or a meter, over the next century, the logical
solution would be the same as it has been throughout all of the recovery since
the last ice age: "move a little further inland". So the property
values of rich beachfront property owners would go down. Hardly an
It always amazes me that people with scant scientific knowledge and even less
knowledge about climate change seem to assume that the scientists are similarly
uninformed.@Tim Behrend: I think you may have misunderstood
Ekwurzel's comment that the "planet will be fine." I think she
meant the planet will survive regardless, but we humans will suffer greatly if
we don't tackle the problem of climate change and do it now.
"Brenda Ekwurzel from the Union of Concerned Scientists"So,
it seems completely Orwellian to spend a paragraph talking about how unbiased
your article is going to be, and then present only the opinion of one group that
is well known to be a climate-alarmist organization. It was founded
specifically to promote alarmism on "Global Warming"....errr, excuse me;
"Climate Change". They are "concerned". The simple
fact is that there is not a consensus on climate change, and many real
climatologists pronounce it as a hoax. What does it say about climate change
that all of its most prominent proponents are not climate scientists but
politicians ? Al Gore has no science qualifications whatsoever! Bill Nye has
a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. Alexandria Occassio-Cortez was a
barista until elected. Contrast with John Coleman, Founder of
"the Weather Channel", who says "Global Warming is the greatest hoax
ever foisted upon the American people". Patrick Moore, Founder of
Greenpeace, has testified to Congress that there is no evidence at all the
humans caused global warming. Unbiased readers are referred to the essay by
Dr. Michael Crichton "Aliens Caused Global warming".
The whole project is driven by unproven assumptions. For example, that droughts
in the West are caused by carbon emissions. Seriously, droughts. In the West.As if hundreds of millennia of geophysical history simply did not
exist.They do the same thing with hurricanes in the South and East,
and tornadoes in the Midwest. Events that have occurred throughout time, but now
carbon emissions are to blame.Prove it.
There is no short term climate change. Any More than there was the early
1970's new Ice age prediction. Yes there are climate changes, (Utah once
was field with Dinosaurs) but the change occur slowly over millions of years.
and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it other than to elected
politicians who's goal is to destroy the Economy and to make themselves, Al
Gore billionaires.It is a toss up who is worse, the Politicians and
media who promote this nonsense, or the voters who believe them.
At this time there is no program if followed that will guarantee any significant
temperature change up or down. We have spent billions and there has been no
significant change in the panic and rhetoric of doomsday predictions of the
people who use it as a weapon to subject us to their way so as to control all
our lives while they profit of our ignorance to stand up to their flawed
conclusions based on cherry picked data non of which since i been around have
come close to their predictions. They have changed from global warming or global
freezing to climate change for the very same reasons since they know most of us
who have been awake the last 81 years know that the climate has been changing
since the earth was created, We should do everything we can in a reasonable and
responsible way to protect our resources and water supplies but not the "
give us more money and do all these thing because we only have have 12 years
before the world ends ". This new green deal would destroy the economy and
our ability to feed our people and insure their safety and take us back to the
Light and LibertyI had no idea that scientists advocated shutting
down oil production, or the mandated use of electric cars. I had no
idea that scientists were Socialists and were intent on destroying
Capitalism.I had no idea that unlimited extraction of resources was
our only way to maintain a common sense approach.Yet, this is what
you assert. These are political assessments with no basis in fact. Which is
exactly what science is about. The search for the truth.Political
assessments are merely the exercise of opinion, bias or malice in these times.
I would prefer that we search for the truth of things. That we respect the work
of those who actually search for what is verifiable. And that we ignore the
braying political class whose agenda seeks not to inform but to inflame.
I’m open to believing that a .00012 change in the atmosphere of the planet
(280 ppm of CO2 to 400 ppm) is going to be responsible for the planet becoming
uninhabitable. Before I accept “scientific consensus” on this
matter, I’d appreciate it if the same scientists (who obviously understand
everything about this planet’s climate system) simply explain to me why
15,000 years ago Detroit was buried under 2 miles of ice. Now it isn’t,
and man had nothing to do with that change. I’d call removal of 10,000
feet of ice global warming. What happened back then? Until we can answer that
question, I’m more worried about natural climate change than any changes
brought on by a .00012 change in the atmosphere.
The author's assertion at the outset of his belief that "you have the
greatest impact on the life you're living" represents a glaring failure
to recognize the extent to which social structures and forces determine so much
of every individual's potential. People, especially children, can't
will themselves to have safe drinking water or good nutrition or access to
reasonable health care. Most can't will themselves out of a warzone or
violent society, and for those who make the attempt there's no guarantee
that they will be admitted into a place where the peace or comfort they seek is
easier to find. As to Ms Ekwurzel's "optimism", I'm not sure
that the writer completely understood her assurances that the planet would be
fine. The earth was fine when its surface was molten, when the globe was a
frozen snowball, when the atmosphere didn't have enough oxygen to cause
iron to rust. It was fine after previous mass extinctions and will be fine when
it's engulfed by the sun as it expands into a red giant in about 8 billion
years. That's just how planets roll.
An impartial debate about climate change is not possible due to the fact that it
has evolved into an economic industry. Businesses and researchers that advocate
climate change have become so dependent upon government grants and private
donations for their livelihood that they would starve (or at least be out of a
job) if they relent. Even the survival of so called non-profits like the Union
for Concerned Scientists depends upon grants and private donations to keep them
going. So those who make their living by selling a climate change scenario will
continue to do so, and those who have probable cause to question their
conclusions will remain skeptical.
This is all assuming that "climate change" as is rammed down our throats
is actually a manmade problem. My question is: has any of these noted
scientists ever heard of climate oscillation? You know, that pesky phenomenon
of heating and cooling that occurs on a cyclic basis? It's been taught in
schools for many decades. We're in a heating phase, which will be
following by a cooling off phase. Pretty simple, really.
Critics of AGW are wont to say "none know what the ideal temperature
is.". But I can tell you temperatures which force refugee forcing migration
are not optimal!
Wow, to say there is 'hope' from a common sense approach is not what
some want to hear. Compelling everyone to drive electric cars, shutting down
oil production, and putting the government in charge of the private sector is
all that will cut it for the extremists intent on destroying Capitalism.
'Free people don't exhaust resources; They create them!'