Mr. Weightman is obviously well-intentioned. However, there is much to be researched, examined and debated, especially when dealing with such a complex and emotionally charged topic as climate change. If you recall, this began years ago as “global warming” and eventually morphed into “climate change”. The fact is that this is an old debate, and during the 70’s it centered around “global cooling” not warming.
TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to man-made global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” This ultimately proved to be totally baseless but didn’t stop the doom and gloomers from continuing their agenda.
This name changing from global warming to climate change was a move on the part of these very same folks to attempt to bring more people into the fold in order to better control the way we think. We have, after all, been experiencing climate change since the planet earth was formed. If you look back on the history of the climate change/global warming movement, you will find that the rules, definitions and statistics are continuously changing in order to fit the narrative and agenda of those wanting so desperately for us to believe in this hoax.
In 2006, Al Gore produced a movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” supposedly seeking to inform the world that the effects of global warming would destroy the earth as we know it, and declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the 10 years passed and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again. Just recently, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders have parroted that notion along with Greta Thunberg, and have now given us 12 years before the end of the earth. How many times do we have to listen to different people regurgitate the same falsehood? It was claimed in Mr. Weightman’s letter that science says that the last time we had a dramatic and devastating rise of 3 degrees of temperature was 3 million years ago! How could Mr. Weightman, or anyone else for that matter, know what the temperature of the earth was then, since temperature record keeping began in 1880? My guess would be more fake news! Furthermore, why do we now believe that this supposed current rise in temperature was man-made? Do you think that there’s any possibility of what supposedly caused that alleged increase 3 million years ago is the same cause today? Perhaps this would indicate that this phenomenon is not man made after all, but simply a geological change based on the evolution of our planet.
Guess what? The climate is changing and will continue to change. That’s the nature of the orb on which we are living. Is this change caused by man and CO2 emissions? That is a valid question yet to be effectively and completely answered. If these are natural causes because of earth’s orbit or changing axis, we have little or no chance of altering that course of events. The whole notion of monetizing this “movement” with carbon credits does nothing to help this situation, perceived or not, and only makes money for those promoting this scheme. The presumption that this climate change is man-made is simply untrue and unproven and has no scientific basis.
Even the United Nations is promoting this myth for their own benefit, and have lied about food supplies diminishing in order to further their propaganda. In August of 2019, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report in its ever-growing “Alarming Climate Crisis of the Week” series: “Climate Change and Land.” That report painted a disturbing picture about the current and future state of crop production and food availability. That report declared, “Warming compounded by drying has caused yield declines in parts of Southern Europe. Based on indigenous and local knowledge, climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America.”
The problem with that thesis is that it is misleading and incorrect! Evidently IPCC missed the fact the U.N.’s own data shows farmers throughout the world are setting new production records virtually every year. For example, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports new records were set in each of the past five years for global cereal production—the Big Three food staples of corn, wheat, and rice. Furthermore, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change has documented hundreds of studies and experiments conclusively demonstrating plants, including cereal grains and fruits, generally thrive under conditions of higher carbon dioxide and modestly warmer temperatures. The ongoing record crop production perfectly illustrates the difference between the Climate Delusion perpetrated by IPCC and other government-funded alarmists and what is happening in the real world. Please don't cherry pick statistics and extrapolate them to a broader spectrum. You can’t have it both ways, folks.
Don’t believe me, the main stream media...or anyone else for that matter. Do your own research...don’t be intellectually lazy! Factual data, showing the truth about global food supplies and other climate conditions, is readily available to anyone willing to search the Internet for it. Then come to your own conclusion.
Furthermore, the argument that was made for electric cars totally excludes the fact that most of the energy it takes to charge up these little beauties is derived from coal fired power plants. Plus, the replacement of the huge batteries that propel these electric cars need to be replaced every few years and is not only terribly expensive, but environmentally destructive in our landfills. Where is the consideration of those facts and the subsequent outrage?
We can certainly do better in the way we produce and consume energy, but windmills and solar grid farms are not the answer and cannot possibly produce the energy needed by a civilized society. Why haven’t these doom and gloom proponents embraced Nuclear Energy as part of the solution? It is clean, effective, and efficient. No mention of nuclear in their plan...why not?
I built and lived in a “solar” home that was predominantly heated by the sun. It cost a bit more to build such a house, but the payoff was realized in several years. More of that can and should be done to new construction, but to suggest that EVERY home in the USA, as proposed by the Green New Deal, be retrofitted, would not be practical or affordable.
While we’re at it, why don’t we hold our politicians and leaders to the same standard that they wish to impose on us and our lifestyle? Al Gore, for example, has one of the biggest carbon footprints on the planet, with his multiple SUV’s and mansions and private jet, and yet he criticizes everyone else for their energy usages. Do as I say, not as I do is being totally hypocritical. If he really believed in this impending crisis, why would he continue to gobble up huge amounts of fossil fuel energy?
Being sensible stems from being properly informed and evaluating both sides of any story. Unfortunately, we have become dependent on the main stream media for most of our information, and in many cases not realizing that they mostly march to the same drummer and have an agenda to foist on the general population that meets their own narrative.
The United Nations is intent on taking away the beautiful liberties we have as Americans. One of those ways is an attempt to strong arm us into complying with certain regulations, whether it be regarding climate change or gun control. China and India are the biggest polluters in the world by far. The fact that the UN is not going after them to reduce their emissions tells you a lot. The United States has the cleanest water and air and pollutes less than any other major country.
While I basically believe that we should err on the side of caution, this global warming/climate change scheme is beyond the pale of rational thinking and only lends itself to radical, far left beliefs, which are not grounded in science or fact, but rather on unbridled emotion.
Charles Markarian
Hardyston, NJ