In Awe of the Climate Fever

How good is the science of climate change?  It is awfully bad! First sign towards incredulity is the attempt to wiggle with semantics. It was global warming in the beginning.  But to hedge the bet that it is possible a global cooling could occur, climate change was a bigger umbrella.  Pun intended.  Now, it is climate emergency, since existential threat has become a bit over used already.

1.) We will not talk about existential threat.  Instead let's talk about existential events that had  already happened.  There were five mass extinctions of species throughout the fossil records. They happened. Species became extinct, new species emerged. In fact, over 95 % of all species that ever existed are no longer with us - today. All of those mass extinctions occurred long before there were internal gas combustion engines, coal fired power plants and industrial furnaces, and if green house gases from Co2 blanketing the upper atmosphere were the reason, they were all from natural causes and way beyond the artificial manipulation by any of the living organisms then. 

2.)  Let's try this.  Ultimately, the sun's energy - the heat we get from it - rules the entire solar system, and it is what determines how hot or cold the planet had been.  1.3 million earths will fit inside our sun.  So, it is huge.  More importantly, it is one unimaginably large thermonuclear device. At its core are the equivalent of about a trillion megaton hydrogen bombs exploding every second.  But we're fortunate, we are 93 million miles away.  Let's put that in perspective.  If the sun is a light bulb at the ceiling in the middle of an average room, earth is the size of a particle of dust on one corner of the breakfast table. We're far away so we get only 2 billionth of the total energy the sun puts out but the sunlight heats the atmosphere and combined with the heat the earth's surface gets (land and oceans), we get our daily weather and the long term  definition of climate.

The sun had been  a stable provider but the nature of how it produces energy is subject to the uncertainty principle, provided for by the laws of physics.  So, any slight deviation from its routine had large consequences on planet earth and the rest of the solar system that depend on it. Disturbances in planetary orbits, solar flares, sun spots, etc. can cause a number of variances on climate.  Add to that volcanic activities, magnetic pole reversals, jet streams, earthquakes and we find that our human efforts would be like a canoe pushing against an ocean liner trying to change its course.  In other words, the mighty sun, the light bulb at the center of the room, will fry an egg on the pavement in Phoenix, Arizona, on a hot summer day, but a slight weakening of its output, or some anomaly in its nuclear fusion reactor, even briefly could have an impact on climate.  And then there is this, from geological records:

"At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago".  In other words that was the time all the Great Lakes in North America were frozen solid with ice and glaciers.

3.) American taxpayers, or 330 million inhabitants are admonished to adhere to the climate agenda.  But two countries with a combined number of about 2.5 billion people, will not play along.  One will continue to burn coal and even export it.  The other just recently, in an effort to be responsive to the cutting of trees for firewood, announced that its households will now switch to propane/butane gas stoves for cooking. But we're told that the U.S.  must aim for zero emissions by such and such a date while kitchens, continents away, will be cooking with hydrocarbon gases.

Meanwhile, today as it happens, the U.S. has by far the cleanest air and cleaner rivers than 3/4 of the world.  If you don't think so, compare U.S. big cities with those of the cities at those two countries alone.  Add another billion who cannot afford to finance a green new deal  on their own to the 2.5 billion people mentioned above and we have  at least half of the world's places that will not comply with the restrictions the U.S. is urged to self-impose.

Climate fever is a strange malady.  Not only is it really not understood, the diagnosis is suspect.  The motivations, however, are much too clear.  It is politics and political power and a means of imposing control and a gateway to central planning from the seat of a central government instead of the federated states.  

Two years ago I wrote in, "In Awe of Climate":

Yesterday, Sept. 4, 2019, 425 days from next year's U.S. 2020 election, ten presidential aspirants gathered for a Climate Town Hall for hours. It and almost all the next get together and discussions to follow will be pivotal in one particular way. One of these candidates could conceivably shape the critical agenda for running the next government in case the present administration is voted out of office. It shall be a huge switch in policy because as one of the candidates said last night, "Every Policy Should Be Informed by Climate Change."  What that means could be subject to interpretation, but for what it is worth, it can mean that climate change will dictate, influence and likely be the last word in how the new government will conduct its business. 

To our dismay, it is exactly what is happening - a feverish scramble to position climate in front of the American public - in less than three months of the new administration.

To remind the reader and every American taxpayer, below is one of the key sections in the bill driving the Green New Deal agenda which will be the overarching influence in much of the proposed spending by this administration in the next decade.  Let us be very clear about this. While politicians and others worry about existential threat that climate has become, this one is horribly consequential to taxpayers and America's well being. 

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);  the goals described in subparagraphs A through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’).

Financially,  $billions "ain't cutting it anymore because now we're talking in trillions of $".

If we are going to distill what is going on, it boils down to two main points: climate change and racism drive the policies.  And somehow, from one rhetoric to the next, the government manages to not only connect them, they are able to make them intersect, intertwine with each other.  No less than the Vice President  took the lead from the New York Times editorial which said: 

"The most immediate cause of the immigration surge may be the series of deadly hurricanes that swept through Central America last year, part of a greater trend fueled by climate change".

Just as an aside, but it is not any less crucial, through the magic of wordsmithing, what used to be a violation of the country's sovereignty of its borders, illegal immigration became undocumented entry and now with nary a pretention, proponents just lump it all into pure and simple immigration. To say that the line is blurred between those arriving at the proper port of entries with proper and legitimate documents and those just merely walking across an open border is a massive understatement.

Some may consider this a radical idea and likely a subject of censorship by social media and I know some of what I had already written had been restricted in subtle ways.  

Let us not forget that for something so nebulous as this climate change initiative has been, thousands of people already lost their jobs across the nation and other places. Add to that all the lost peripheral businesses related to the fossil fuel industry and the potential rise in gas prices and we will have an economic hardship about which we will find a lot more unintended consequences to follow.

The more we are told to follow the science the more we will see that climate change could be a fraud, an impostor of the truth.  

Are we really in for a world like this?

Or, is the blue planet much too resilient than we give it credit?

We are not and should not be saying that we abandon all efforts towards a cleaner, safer environment but we must do it with an abundance of common sense and a paucity of politics and pseudo-science.

As reference to "In Awe of Climate", copy link below to your search bar and click on it:

https://abreloth.blogspot.com/2019/09/in-awe-of-climate.html