As a meteorologist in the private sector, wherein success is largely determined by forecasting skill, I cannot afford to be wrong. I was taught that studying the past helps one predict the future. This is the origin of my involvement in the climate debate, since the “worst ever” bloviating we see today can easily be challenged through examination of the past.
My politics are simple. I believe one should have as much freedom as possible to enjoy life, liberty, and pursue happiness. In my opinion, the role of government is to establish standards to maximize these freedoms. I assume no one has anything against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I also assume there is a large population of young people who are concerned about the future.
There is a striking difference between young people in this country today and the young people in the Eastern Bloc who actively worked to overthrow the communist chains that enslaved them in the 20th century. Young people 35 years ago yearned for the freedoms they saw in the West — the very ideals a growing movement in this country seeks to overturn. The US was a beacon of light to that generation, but now the same age group wishes to dim that very light.
Why do people now seek to push the West into a system in which government controls information? I believe it’s because of a lack of countering information that’s fair and balanced.
The issue at play is using climate as a means to an end. The crucial swing generation and those growing into it (the 6-19-year-olds of today) have only been exposed to a drumbeat meant to indoctrinate them. Indoctrination is a crucial aspect of totalitarian systems and comes about with a media working in tandem with a political agenda and an education system designed to feed one side of an issue. This is very similar to the same system that the young people in the Eastern Bloc worked so hard to get rid of, as many from those countries will tell you.
Check out this book that is being used in some elementary schools. In my opinion, it is pure indoctrination.
It was in part written by an author who wrote Do Fish Fart?
What do you say to an eight-year-old who comes home with this book?
If people knew and understood the power of the state in controlling information, they would be skeptical of what they are being told about changes in climate.
Some countering information: this chart showing the makeup of the atmosphere.
CO2 occupies 0.04 percent (.0004) of the atmosphere. Man’s contribution is ¼ that, or .0001 of the atmosphere.
The U.S. contributes 15% (.000015) to that .0001. Since this has occurred in the past 45 years, the yearly contribution from the U.S. is .00000033. The average state enacting Paris-accord-type agreements contributes .0000000066. This is all to save .01°C. But as Gina McCarthy said when questioned about that figure, that’s not the real value of the EPAs intention. Her exact quote from her 2015 Senate hearing (in which she did not know the percentage of CO2 in the air): “The value of this rule is not measured in [temperature reduction]. It is measured in strong domestic action, which can actually trigger global action to address what is a necessary action.”
The cost of such plans has been estimated at $93 trillion over 10 years by the American Action Forum. But do people who are buying into it know that? Do they know the physical properties of CO2 that limit its effects? Dr. Will Happer, who is chairing the president’s climate-change panel, certainly does, and it’s the reason for his stance on CO2 as a net benefit to the planet. It’s not a tipping-point prospect; instead, it’s a diminishing return, similar to putting extra coats of paint on a surface — because the bands it absorbs radiation in are essentially saturated already (it’s a very narrow window).
Besides, given the variation in both in the known history of the planet, can anyone tell you what the ideal planetary temperature is? Or the ideal CO2 level? The agenda means economic hardship for the U.S. I believe young people today are buying into this only because they are indoctrinated into a single way of thinking in the absence of opposing information.
When you hear only one point of view, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical, as people escaping from socialist societies will tell you.
Post a Comment