I’ve written about “climate change” before… but my objections seem to require reiteration every time the subject comes up. So…
Climates change. It’s what they do. The severity of this winter compared to last winter or even this decade’s summers compared to last decade’s is not climate study. Data must cover centuries for conclusions to have value. We have no such data: we have computer software that creates various models.
“Climate change” is an academic industry. In the current political climate, you don’t get grants by discovering that our climate’s vagaries are staying within the range of normal deviation (any more than you get grants for concluding that maleness is not toxic or that gender is biological). The academy is grinding out propaganda because professors are busily crafting careers for themselves. Look, if Shell Oil or BP can fund a study showing that gasoline tastes great on cornflakes and builds strong bones, then the Nanny State/Ivory Tower/Turbine & Solar Conglomerate can operate a boondoggle from their side of the street.
Carbon dioxide is less than half of one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere. Its abundance appears to have ticked up infinitesimally in recent years—actually fueling a growth in global vegetation, by the way. With more vegetation comes more rain—and let’s add more heat just for the exercise, which brings yet more rain. Good. Now we have taken a small step toward replenishing our catastrophically dwindling groundwater supply. Twenty years ago, that concern was among the top five that preoccupied earth scientists alarmed over our lifestyle’s sustainability. I haven’t heard a peep about the levels of continental water tables for years, even though human beings die a lot faster from water deprivation than from having their Myrtle Beach time-share washed under. Odd, that silence.
And as for scientists… no cardiologist, or phoneticist, or archaeologist, knows any more about climate than a truck-driver—and meteorologists are themselves not necessarily qualified to air out an opinion on climate. I grow so very weary of the remark, “We should trust the experts”! We must first identify the “experts”, which most of us have not done; and then we must ask ourselves what kind of game the less conscientious of them (for being an “expert” does not inoculate one against moral depravity) might be playing with our future. Neils Bohr, Werner von Braun, and Philipp Bouhler were all expert in their field in the Thirties and Forties. How did common humanity make out under their watchful eye?
Wind and solar power are neither clean, cheap, nor sustainable. The rare-earth elements required in their assembly are ghastly contaminants for those who must mine them, their promotion is perhaps the great unreported scandal in the new century’s already long history of corporate rip-offs, and their hardware functions—not forever—but for two or three decades before needing replacement. They would also claim almost every inch of free space around us to have even the remotest chance of replacing fossil fuels. Read Paul Driessen on the subject: he’s an expert (though the Oracle of Apollo at Wikipedia is pleased to call him a “lobbyist” because he opposes the academic/statist complex).
Nullifying our conventional energy resources as we pay out billions to Third World nations and also allow China and India to continue belching pollutants into the atmosphere will save nobody—but it will surely tighten the noose around the necks of Americans preferentially. Is that the objective: mass suicide? Are the Paris Accords the third and final great act of Jonestown and Heaven’s Gate—is that how we achieve escape velocity into the next life? Do most of you understand that such is the choice to which you are being urged by your “leaders” and “experts”?
Now, a new idea: why not spend our time and wealth on a solution which would actually alleviate the problem? What about creating a series of floating cities? The level of the world’s oceans would be a matter of virtual indifference to their residents. Such island-states could control intrusions much more easily that landbound metropolises, and would hence be much safer from crime. They could evade major storms and so escape the cost incurred when devastating hurricanes make landfall. They could supply many of their essential needs directly from the sea (probably even tapping into wave and current somehow to generate electricity). Most significantly for those who truly care about world peace and prosperity, they could reduce the risk of global conflict almost to zero; for nuclear assault on targets so widely dispersed would mean death to the assailant as well as the target. The highly effective dissuading factors behind Mutually Assured Destruction would be revived. Most of the world does not share the Green Movement’s craving for a propitiatory mass suicide.
The blueprints for such cities are already on the drawing board. Why has the political Left no interest in solutions that actually hold promise of working? Why is the response of its adherents always some version of, “No, no, no! I’m not listening! I’ve stopped my ears! Nah-nah-nah! Not listening, not listening!”
Does it not strike you that people who so resist open discussion and consideration of alternatives may be a) mentally unstable or b) working an angle too sinister to make known publicly? Will you please weigh these matters seriously? Please?