More on Climate Change
I love keeping the questions coming about the “narrative” that is parroted non-stop by the questionable news sources around the world.
The minute we stop challenging – is the minute you lose.
By Eric Peters
Like chemotherapy for cancer.
But what if the diagnosis is wrong?
What if they are lying to us?
Maybe we should get a second opinion – or at least give it a second thought – before we jump on the “climate change” bandwagon.
I personally have a few misgivings based on a few inconvenient truths I’d like to share with you – along with some politically incorrect observations.
First, I will concede that the climate does change. But is this something abnormal? Is man responsible for it changing abnormally?
The fact is atmospheric gas composition and average temperatures have varied wildly over the eons of time the Earth has existed and long before human beings existed. They will vary in the future as well.
Now, the assertion made by the “climate change” crowd (their choice of words is very interesting) is that human activity is causing an unnatural increase in C02 levels and temperatures. But this is an assertion – based on computer models – and cooked data. I’ve looked into it, as opposed to genuflecting before the warbles of non-scientist politicians (this includes, by the way, the non-scientist Bill Nye the “science” guy, who holds no academic degree in any applicable discipline) who have a clear interest in peddling the idea that there is a “crisis” – the sky is falling! – which of course they have the solution to.
For example, the taking of ground temperature readings in paved-over/concrete-covered urban areas (heat sinks) and other such manipulations, which give a distorted (arguably, a deliberately dishonest) impression of average temperatures and whether trends are within normal parameters.
Also, the folding in of greenhouse “emissions” from natural sources such as methane blooms (bubbling up of gasses from the seafloor) with man-made sources such as carbon dioxide coming out of the tailpipes of vehicles.
What about the massive naturally-occurring “emissions” of C02?
The careful putting aside of solar activity as a possible and entirely normal contributory factor (not surprising, given we lack the enforcement ability to impose solar emissions standards on the nuclear furnace that anchors our solar system).
We were initially (back in the ’70s, some will recall) warned about global cooling – and an imminent ice age. We were going to freeze to death. When this did not happen global warming was subbed in. It resonated for awhile (in the ’90s especially) after a few very hot summers. But then some very hard winters ensued.
The climate, er, changed.
“We” must do something to prevent this…
Except of course, it is us (and just us) who will be on the receiving end of “change.”
This is worth thinking about, in order to divine motives – and evaluate the veracity of the claims being made.
If this “crisis” were real rather than contrived, why is it that the government itself has not taken “action” – as regards its own “carbon footprint”?
Consider the carbon dioxide (and other) emissions output of an M1A Abrams battle tank vs. a Camry. The federal government has a fleet of approximately 8,848 such tanks (many more tanks than the German Wehrmacht had its disposal when it invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941) and tens of thousands of gas (and diesel) guzzling (and C02 spewing) supporting vehicles.
41,062 Armored Fighting Vehicles, to be specific. Plus troop transports, Jeeps, Humvees and so on.
If “we” are in imminent danger from man-caused global warming (whoops, climate change) triggered by the release of C02 and so on from internal combustion engines, why is the military allowed to maintain this vast fleet of tanks and related heavy equipment? Surely, the “defense” of the Homeland could be achieved with fewer such than Hitler needed to get within 15 miles of Moscow?
How about the multiple aircraft carrier battle groups and the oceans of jet fuel consumed by their air wings (13,444 aircraft)? The fuel oil consumed by the non-nuclear supporting ships? What is their “carbon footprint”?
And why isn’t it being reduced?
I mean, if we are facing a “crisis” and all?
The government exhorts us to accept material diminishment but never makes such sacrifices itself. This ought to tell people something.
The people running (and who want to run) the government finger wag at us about our wasteful ways yet themselves live in huge dachas (see, for example, soon-to-be-former Dear Leader Obama’s new home; or prospective Dear Leader Hillary’s 5,300 sq. foot home in Chappaqua, NY). There is also ex-would-be-Dear Leader Mittens Romney’s 11,000 square foot home (with a car elevator).
They insist we do.
Did you ever see Al Gore’s progagandamentary, An Inconvenient Truth? At one point, Al is monologuing about the urgent need to change our ways as he drives along in his Cadillac Escalade. Which is a huge SUV with a huge V8 engine.
And a huge “carbon footprint.”
I will begin to take “climate change” seriously when I see Al and Barry and Hillary and Mittens and all the rest of them begin to make “wrenching changes” to their lives. When the C02 plumes eructed by the “defense” conglomerate are “controlled.”
I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.
Which says a lot about the “crisis” they keep telling us is imminent.