No, I am not talking about the political jockeying in Washington and the incessant drive and desire of the Democrats and the Never Trump Crowd to destroy the president.  In that, we probably should be alarmed and even angered, but that is not my subject today.  I want to address, once more, ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Manmade Global Warming’ or whatever they are calling it these days.  There are some legitimate questions that need answers and I hope to point you in a direction that might help you determine the answers to the questions.  I will, however, offer my view and couple that with a $10 bill and you can get a cup of coffee even at Starbucks.

I keep hearing former presidents, liberals, leftists, and even some Republicans arguing that the scientific community is unanimous in their consensus on the matter.  They have bought the arguments of the Global Warming Activist or Hucksters and embraced the idea that fossil fuels are ultimate evils and must be eliminated.  That leads to many questions but let me offer two or three and you take it from there.  Is the scientific community really united and in agreement on this issue?  Can we truly harness solar and wind energy sufficiently to take over for fossil fuels in the foreseeable future to a level that would allow humanity to maintain our modern level of productivity and convenience?  Remember we have a world of 7 billion people.  Another question that must be addressed is, has CO2 caused any real harm, yet?  Let me capsulize those questions with one answer – NO!

When someone says that 97% of all scientists agree, I shake my head in disbelief.  Disbelief because I’m not sure you could 97% of any group to agree on anything, much less something so lacking corroboration as ‘man-made global warming’ and ‘climate change’ because of man’s activities.  I don’t believe it and keep finding evidence that the claim is another Fuzzy Math Manipulation by the Leftists and Global Warming Activist in an attempt to give credibility to their argument. 

Someone suggested that if the scientists had been asked, “Do you believe that the Earth’s climate is changing, and does mankind have any effect on it?”  The percentage would likely have been 100%, not 97%.  Likewise, had the question been, “Is burning fossil fuel such a threat that there should be a major and emergency effort to stop it?”  I believe the response would have been 50% or less. That’s not what they ask or how they ask the questions.  Like all polls, the questions are skewed so they the responses will be in accordance with the desired, not factual reality or honest evaluation.

The scientific community is and will always be very divided on this issue.  There was a petition circulated by Friedrich Seitz, the president of the National Academy of Sciences disputing the ill effects of CO2 on the climate.  It was signed by 32,000 scientists and in that number were over 9,000 Ph.D. scientists.  An excerpt from Steven Koonin, director of the Institute for Urban Studies at NYU, in the Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2017 highlights that divide.  “The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science.  At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability.  At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent – and unexpected – slowing of global sea level rise over the past two decades.”  Can we depart from the 97% and realize that it might well be 50% agreeing with the activist such as Al Gore?

In 1998, about 86% of the world’s energy was from fossil fuel, and 9%, nuclear, solar, and wind.  In 2017, about 20 years later and hundreds of billions spent, ($150 Billion in the U.S. alone), we find the numbers are now 85% and 5%.  That should tell you how unlikely it is that wind and solar power will not replace fossil fuel in the near future.  The cost is too astronomical to pursue on a scale needed to do that.  Imagine what a decrease of 85% in energy would mean to you personally.  How would that affect your lifestyle?  If you are willing to give up your automobile, lose your air conditioning, high-tech goods, and medicines, lose virtually all air travel, and most electricity as well as manufactured goods, then it’s a good thing for you.  I am not in the number.

The melting ice we are told is a clear and present danger and proof of man-made global warming.  The problem is that rather than losing ice mass in the Antarctic there has not been a loss of ice but the formation of 80 billion tons per year.  It is just in a different location than the previous.  Melts in one area and forms in another.  That is not melting ice that is going to raise the sea levels microscopically.

Regarding CO2, we can’t live without it.  It is beneficial.  It is not, as they claim, a pollutant, but a vital nutrient for plant life.  Do you realize that without atmospheric CO2, life on this planet would not be possible?  NASA’s report of the past 40 years of satellite measurement reveals that the Earth is ‘greening’ not dying.

Climate statistics and data for the past 118 years demonstrates the fallacy of using ‘climate models’ to predict or promote the climate change alarm.  From 1910 to 1940 the Earth warmed and that was not a response to CO2 released into the atmosphere by man.  We don’t know why it just did.  But then I am a believer in God and that His creation has cyclical changes for reasons known only to Him.  From 1975 to 2000 there was similar warming and the apologists of Man-Made Climate Change insisted it was exclusively the blame of CO2.  It wasn’t in the earlier period but was in that period.  What is their proof?  They wanted it to be, so they manipulated and reasoned within themselves, it must be so. 

There are, in my view, and for what I can discover, many unknown causes for warming and cooling of the planet.  CO2 and greenhouse gasses do have an effect, how much, we really don’t know.  But beyond those, there is the overturning circulation of the oceans, the magnetic field of the sun, the periodic cycles of ocean temperature, and the chaotic variation that occurs.  The idea that the Pacific Islands will be flooded and underwater because of melting ice is not substantiated by their own scientific calculations.  For example, they survived the sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age.  Why?  Because coral islands grow upward as the sea level rises.  That is not a secret, but the Global Warming Advocates don’t want you to think about that truth.

There are many many reasons to reject the alarmist claiming that our planet is on the verge of destruction because of man-made global warming.  It is not, and it will outlast all of us and generations to come.  I, as a believer in God, believe that He created this Earth knowing what would transpire and His promise that as long as the Earth remains there will ‘seed time and harvest, cold and hot, winter and summer.’  I trust God, not computer models of manipulated science.  Believe what you will, but if you trace the roots of this hysteria you will find two things at its heart – Money and Power!

God bless you and God bless America!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s