The Green New Deal has become a means of theft: elites taking freedom and independence, and possibly life, itself, away from the middle and lower classes. “Oh! No!” you say, “Surely you are misinterpreting the existential threat of climate change and their intense efforts to save the planet.” Well, no, actually I’m trying to balance reality with what we’re being told.
Many hundreds of statements and declarations are made on a weekly, monthly, annual basis – certainly on every hot day, cold day, dry day or wet day, that “climate change” is wreaking havoc on the planet and on the poor and downtrodden, minorities and LGBTQ+ “communities” worst of all. It’s all the fault of you smug suburbanites and your SUVs spewing that awful carbon dioxide… and the cow farts you cause by eating burgers made from meat and not insects. Don’t forget your air conditioners and outdoor grills – all hastening our extinction.
This would be such a nice planet to live on if it weren’t for all you… well… people for goodness’ sakes. (Can’t say ‘God’s sake.’)
Actually, if it were not for the constant tilt of most media outlets, the condition of the earth and its climate could be discussed and better known by young and old, alike. We are just coming to the end of a very hot summer. There were drought conditions in many countries. We will soon be inundated with claims of the planet having a “fever” and “the earth is on fire,” and similar declarations. So far, we haven’t suffered a hurricane coming ashore to the United States; as soon as one does, we’ll be told there are more -and stronger – storms because of our driving “fossil-fueled cars” and resisting buying non-polluting “electric vehicles,” EV’s. If we have a severely snowy winter with lots of cold, cold days, they’ll all be our fault, too.
There is some supposed perfect average global temperature… one we like. It is impossible to define the “ideal” climate, the ideal temperature, the ideal amount of ice at the poles, the ideal amount of cloud-cover or precipitation… or the ideal anything else. What does seem easy to idealize is the right population the earth should hold and support, and it is a Hell of a lot smaller than the population we have, today. Various oligarchs, like Bill Gates and others, think the world is overpopulated by 5 BILLION people, or even more. It’s going to take substantial new rates of sterility and deaths to achieve the “ideal.” What an achievement that will be.
Around the planet ice is melting… from the poles (supposedly), Greenland, various glaciers and so forth. This causes terrible worries. Oddly, they’re more terrible for leftists in the West, than for conservatives. They don’t make a damned bit of difference to leftists in Russia, China, India and elsewhere, or to Islamists, who are happy with any number of earthlings as long as they’re all Muslims – the right kind of Muslims.
It’s rather comforting that the climate is changing, whether warming or cooling at any time: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years – maybe billions of years… as long as we’ve had an atmosphere. No one would want to be here on the day the climate STOPS changing. For most people, “climate change” translates as “global warming.” We can see videos of running water on Greenland and shrinking glaciers in the mountains. Definitely, it’s warming. Then we have a summer like 2022’s and we are convinced of the imminent danger of the seas rising and a hurricane toppling our houses. Look what happened to New Orleans, for Pete’s sake. Maybe if they’d all had electric cars in 2005, the people who wasted the federal moneys for strengthening the dikes around the ninth ward might have gone to jail.
It’s hard to predict the future, and that’s the only kind of predicting there is. There is a form of false, God-save-us-if-this-happens sort of prognosticating, though, that is employed stridently by “Climate Campaigners.” It’s always negative. People who worry about and inveigh about the climate, are certain that change means some form of doom. They never seem to make any predictions of benefit from “climate change.” It’s always an imminent disaster, and it’s always our fault, meaning that we have to make drastic changes to avert certain death in as few as 10 or 12 years.
The premise of prediction is history. Recorded history of what people have done, or which volcanoes blew up or geologic evidence of mile-thick ice sheets that created the Great Lakes and the like, as well as records of various past weather trends and climatological periods, provide a basis from which inferences are drawn and, in very grave tones, predictions are made about the future of climate and weather over the next hundred years or so. It’s all very scientific, except it’s impossible to replicate the conditions to see if the same effects take place, so climatologists are unable, actually, to apply the scientific method to historic evidence and add to the evidence of the first “experiment,” seeking correlation.
Atmospheric scientists have gained great knowledge and reasonable predictive power of weather deriving from worldwide patterns like El Niño, although little has been said about movements of the magnetic poles, for example, and the focus of charged particles changing cloud formation patterns. The availability of satellite data, global photography and thousands of measurements daily and hourly, have given meteorologists perhaps too much confidence in prediction, and this has seeped in to the self-esteem of climatologists, too.
Whether from ice cores or dendrochronology (tree rings), climatologists can paint what they feel is an accurate picture of what the climate has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Things become more sketchy when they try to make inferences as to WHY they were the way they were. Bias, or belief, can sway even the best scientists’ theories of cause and effect. It’s something “science” ostensibly guards against and works against no matter the line or field of inquiry. Replicating experiments and finding the same or similar results – and publishing those results for other scientists to review and try to replicate or prove wrong, is how science makes real progress towards understanding.
It is not possible to replicate the past; it’s not possible to mimic all the conditions, both on the earth and impacting the earth hundreds or thousands of years ago. But there is great pressure, whether personal or from the all-important funding sources (grants) for a direct correlation to be discerned… cause and effect. Why? Because the reason the study of the past is being funded is often because of beliefs about today’s climate and weather, and that there is a way that humans and their bold politicians can avoid the conditions of the past. A little humidity – if not humility – is called for.
Politicians and the scientists they fund, have an overriding belief that we humans can modify the climate to keep weather as pleasant as we like, the oceans at the depths they currently are, the glaciers as big as they are if not bigger, and polar bears in their favorite conditions, too. Underlying this presumption is a belief that we humans have caused changes in the climate to begin with. Otherwise, we are powerless to undo the damage it is believed we have done! So, to start with, let’s agree that humans HAVE altered the climate somewhat, and not just around cities.
Cities form “heat islands” with huge blocks of real and manufactured stone, steel and asphalt absorbing more sunlight than the natural environment they replaced. But huge, multi-square-mile farms also modify natural environments, also changing sunlight absorption, requiring and transpiring huge volumes of water – water that is artificially moved away from its natural location(s). Are either of these commonplace alterations of the natural environment changing climate? Somewhat, but how much? It is very hard to quantify or even describe. That is, we know the CAUSES we’re concerned about, but we cannot, despite many claims, actually pin down the EFFECTS of these two causes. Certainly there are some, but what should people be forced to stop doing in order to offset those effects? We don’t really know, but there is a strong political pressure to force people to stop doing something because of some politicians’ FEARS. Indeed, one of their biggest fears is of doing nothing or, worse, of failing to force other people to stop doing something.
The urge to do something and to force others to do something comes, deep down, from a belief that a wise-enough human, especially from the leftist persuasion, can control almost anything, including populations, countries and planets. To a great degree, these same authoritarians will automatically adopt any tool or method to control those who aren’t in agreement with them, especially people whose faith tends toward religious origins rather than government ones. Soon, the authoritarians commence to blaming those who don’t agree with their beliefs, for the problems they believe they, the ‘wise,’ are destined to solve. Any contrary data, facts or “science” non-leftists discover, are automatically denigrated and their proponents are labeled “deniers,” as an attempt to more firmly cement the immutable truth of what leftists believe. It becomes difficult to discuss or debate ideas in that environment.
Because CO2 is generated by so many human activities and machines, not least of which is electricity generation, and because climatologists have observed wide fluctuations in the apparent concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over millennia from all those ice cores and tree rings, there has grown up a set of beliefs about the correlation of temperatures at different points in time and CO2. We can summarize this fear quite easily: More CO2 than the magical percentage is BAD; less CO2 than the magical percentage is GOOD. Sometimes the rise in CO2 concentration precedes a warming period, sometimes it follows, but there is definitely, we’re almost certain… in fact, we’re so close to certain that it’s time to pass laws that we think will reduce the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere so that the average temperature of the entire planet’s biosphere can be controlled.
Whether these temperature fluctuations are caused by carbon-dioxide or not is unproven and unprovable. But, it is definitely believed by many. Of course, CO2 is essential for life and good for vegetation in particular, from which our food derives: farms and crops and things. So we wouldn’t want to interfere too much, would we? How much is too much? It’s impossible to say, but less than we’re making now, we’re quite certain.
CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor are the primary “greenhouse gases.” They’re all natural. Many chlorinated and fluorinated gases that we manufacture also have the effect of “trapping” solar energy. Fortunately, they are much smaller fractions of the atmosphere, although not as small a fraction as the dreaded CO2. [See http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/07/20/a-home-on-the-beach/ ]
It’s common to see descriptions of human contributions to total greenhouse gases based on what percent of our (American) contribution is CO2. This makes it look like CO2 is a gigantic problem and the U. S. contributes over 70% of it! Ye Gods! Stop breathing! On the other hand, it is very reassuring that over 70% of what we contribute is CO2 and not methane or manufactured gases. Methane is natural gas, basically, and the product of bacterial action on organic materials, like food we eat or grasses and grains that cattle, deer, antelope, bears and squirrels eat, among other living things. Those gases escape, both intentionally and accidentally. As far as we know, animal escapes are all accidental. Still, methane is a greenhouse gas, the concentration of which also should be reduced, according to the magical percentage theory of global management. This has led to calls to reduce cattle herds and, less publicized, to reduce human herds, too. Ye Gods, again!
Those who are deeply committed to the magical percentages of greenhouse gases theory, are equally committed to blaming their fellow humans for every weather event that is less than perfectly comfortable for everyone from the Amazon watershed to the arctic tundra. Everything is now our fault. It has become a great tool for forcing people to accept authoritarian government as it lovingly struggles to avert the imminent climate catastrophe. A “climate crisis” is declared repeatedly. Taxpayers and anyone who wants the United States to survive and prosper, should have justifiable concern about any use of “crisis” in relation to items of government interest. The designation is uniformly employed to justify borrowing from future generations to create politically advantageous spending, now. There’s a $31 TRILLION liability on our balance sheet that demonstrates the effectiveness of this spending strategy. Thus it is that “climate change” has become “climate crisis,” a political tool, and not just for the U. S. Climate is global, and through the World Economic Forum [See http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2022/04/16/where-the-globalists-struck-first/ ] it is politically valuable to globalists and other socialists. There is no reason to trust them.
The W.E.F. has determined that nitrogen-based chemicals, like most fertilizers, must be curtailed in order to save the planet. You can see the conflict: humans eat the products of fertilized crops. We like to eat meat, too, often simultaneously, and the animals that provide it also contribute to nitrogen chemicals resulting from bodily functions. It is what it is. The globalist solution? Less eating! Unfortunately, many governments pay attention to the blatherous emanations of the W.E.F., and adjust policies to fit. You can read of the effects of this nonsense in the Netherlands, where farmers are in serious protest, or in Sri Lanka where people are starving. Oddly, the same people who want to mandate the mRNA “vaccines” are they who want to limit food supplies to avoid climate change. Are the two efforts connected in purpose? Population reduction? Certainly, in terms of the net effects of the Covid-19 “vaccines,” population reduction appears to be the biggest net effect. The spike in non-Covid deaths among the healthiest demographic (ages 25 to 64) in the U. S., Canada and the U. K., is continuing. The victims are vaccinated against Covid.
It seems intensely Prudent to be intensely skeptical of the unsubstantiated claims of Climate believers.
We should consider the benefits of warming and the ancillary costs of attempting “carbon neutral” or, worse, “zero carbon” by any date-certain. All the public statements about “climate change” fit under one heading: “The sky is falling!!” Note the dual exclamation points! Once the rabid claims are sorted out – and the overblown statistics corrected-for – the best projection for the extent of warming is 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit by year 2100. What are the upsides?
One is longer growing seasons for the crops that sustain the world’s population. This can also translate to requiring less fertilization and more fallow periods for fields, enabling natural processes to enrich the soil between crops. There will be more arable land, now covered by ice. Some may think this is a tragedy, but those who live near the ice are glad to see it go. Earth’s current weather patterns will change. This may mean more rain in lots of areas. Deserts that have evidence of past wet periods might return to that condition, improving opportunities for many peoples to feed themselves and spend less time on subsistence, leaving more time to develop their societies and, perhaps, correct their crappy politics and improve millions of people’s lives and futures.
Less energy will be expended heating homes and other buildings; less fuel expended clearing snow. Meanwhile, should we manage to avoid or stifle the warlike designs of globalists and Communists, the invention and innovation of free, well-nourished people will be making at least as much progress in engineering and science as we’ve made in the past 80 years. Our economies will cost less in energy density, transportation will be logarithmically more efficient. People who are bound by ideologies that condemn half the population, and who are willing to twist “science” for political advantage, cannot conceive of humans creating solutions to the problems that serve one political ideology today: leftist authoritarianism.
In short, there are more reasons to hope for the future than to fear it. If we have the wisdom to restore freedom as our flame of purpose, there is nothing to fear. Biden and his ilk will be gone. Education will be dramatically decentralized and made honest and non-ideological. Freedom, Hope and Genuine Progress: bring it on!