With a worldwide war pressed by Islamists raging in the Middle East, Europe and coming to gun-free zones here in the U. S. of A., the pathetically delusional president of the United States dresses up as a leader and declares to the world that climate is our greatest fear.
Islamic terrorists?—Never heard of ‘em. We have some domestic and workplace violence—nothing to see there; the attorney general will handle it, after she seeks out people who criticize Muslims. And disarming our citizens will prevent more illegal shootings. But if we don’t soon rid Earth’s atmosphere of carbon dioxide we will perish for sure.
For the past twenty-five years, during scant evidence of global temperature increases, the disciples of the Church of Latter Day Climate have reviled skeptics of manmade causes; affirmed that they have “settled science; “put a curse and a cost on modern living conditions; and swore we will burn in Hell if we don’t stop burning fossils. Priests at the federal EPA declared that the very breaths we humans breathe are evil “air pollution”—only regulations and cash will redeem us.
But as politics and environmental mysticism are swept aside by enlightenment, the truth emerges.
Recently Wall Street Journal opinion writers Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser prepared a “Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,” (Link below) bringing us up-to-date on some facts and politics swirling around the issue. I have added my comments to their quotes.
They begin by writing that “President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism.” Everything the man says is careless, or foolish. And he backs up his words with our money.
In 2009 while blowing hot air at a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen Obama promised $100 billion a year in compensation to developing countries for economic losses they would incur by complying with arbitrary rules to reduce emissions.
It will never happen. Even the feckless U.S. Congress wouldn’t agree to pay “such an astronomical wealth transfer,” according to Ridley and Peiser. Then, there are the stubborn and inconvenient facts of the matter.
World air temperatures since 1990 have increased less than one-degree Fahrenheit; a statistical rounding error. More important, “it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times in the past 10,000 years”—prior to our modern industrial age.
Globally, “as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, while deaths attributed to such natural disasters have never been fewer.”
“Arctic sea ice has recently melted more in summer than it used to in the 1980s, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctica is gaining land-based ice,” according to a new NASA study.
Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer notes in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, that the depletion of summer sea ice in the Arctic is well documented by satellite observations, but it was nearly as warm there eighty years ago as it is today. Further, Arctic warming is associated with the warming phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural climate cycle.
Similar to El Nino and La Nina in the tropical Pacific, the PDO is a regional shift in weather patterns over the North Pacific Ocean. It has a thirty-year cycle that functions to move heat around the Earth. The importance of this to the global warming debate “has been largely ignored,” writes Dr. Spencer. Moreover, he observes, the time scale of the PDO is “long enough to cause climate change.” Other scientists agree.
WSJ authors offer further guidance to the climate debate: “Sea level continues its centuries-long slow rise—about a foot a century—with no sign of recent acceleration.” Many natural phenomena could cause seas to rise, from the influence of our Moon to seismic shifts on Earth.
Despite the “settled science” ploy, scientists agree that there is “great uncertainty” about dire predictions. In the fifth and latest assessment for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warming predictions by the end of this century vary from “mildly beneficial to significantly harmful.”
You can’t base rational government policy (an oxymoron) on this wild variable. Dr. Spencer refers to extreme climate variability as climate “chaos”—the reason weather can be predicted only for a few days.
Some scientists recognize that atmospheric warming, if caused by increases in carbon dioxide, could benefit us because it makes plants grow better and more drought resistant. But CO2 is a very elusive gas. Recent studies indicate that predictions of carbon dioxide “sensitivity” by climate models are actually lower by 30-50 percent.
Still, some radically faithful Warmers persist with wild and crazy predictions of future catastrophic events and irrational expectations that government policies can decarbonize the global atmosphere.
The European Union politico’s “key” demand that “the Paris Protocol must deliver” would be equally binding on all members. It states: “…legally binding mitigation commitments that put the world on track toward achieving the below 2o C objective….” Chances of getting such an agreement: “close to zero.”
Wall Street Journal authors conclude:
Climate change is proving slower and less damaging than feared. Measures to address it are costlier and more painful than expected.
Regardless of facts, we can be sure that the religion of Climate Change will not perish from the earth because it is based on faith in pseudoscience and politics. And it’s very unsettled.