What is your position on the climate crisisdebate?
After checking data and reading about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I started thinking perhaps it’s all a hoax.
How do we know there is a climate crisis? Does our focus on CO2 require takingfunding from other critical social and economic problems? Some nations are investing in fossil fuels while Americans, especially in West Virginia, are threatened by what amounts to our economic demise.
Weather is not climate, according to climatologists from around the world. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. There are no facts suggesting increases in any catastrophic, calamitous, or cataclysmic numbers.
Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved. Research scientists at American universities are encouraged to find evidence for global warming with grants from The Federal Government.
How many awards are given out to find the obverse of climate change? Could money have an effect on the reliability of research findings?
New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels, which has very little to do with it.
All of our “decarbonizing” efforts won’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to changing our planet’s climate to any measureable mark.
That’s because there’s really no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
And as for sea levels, they probably willcontinue to rise — though not quickly, and not much. Researchers, however, have found no links between CO2 and rising sea levels.
Similarly, no one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more vulnerable toatmospheric/aquatic factors other than by CO2.
So then, are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other liberals pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry? Istrickery going on under the surface, under the table?
Perhaps we should be on guard, be vigilant during the coming months. Our practicaland sensible politicians should not be fooled by outrageous claims by thisadministration, which has been wrong on so many other fronts during past months.
Are left-wing extremists trying to pull the wool over our eyes to gain power for their agenda while ignoring the needs of all Americans? Could this possibly be real?
What we need is a platform for investigating the other side of the equation, so we can form our own, non-political opinions.
Who can we believe? What should we do? Should we not examine all the evidence before coming to a conclusion?
Policy always involves politics. Governments often make policy decisions by starting with a social objective and then bringing in the “facts” to justify the goal.
We shouldn’t be surprised to find social agendas of the “far-left” in Washingtondriving at least some of the “science” of global warming.
In addition, studies show that political beliefs cloud our ability to process information. Strong partisan opinions can cause us to look at one side of an issue and ignore evidence for the other side. We must weigh all data before yielding togovernment mandates that strain our economy and our resources.
Forecasts are mental constructs; they are not properties of the physical world. Forecasts are tools, not truth.
Consensus, meanwhile, is not an argument for any scientific principle. Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular. One key scientific paper can be worth more than athousand papers reinforcing a myth—a fable that is misleading.
Big climate conferences now are popping up around the globe. Diplomats soon will debate the merits of an agreement that promises to steer hundreds of billions of dollars toward reducing carbon emissions, mostly in large developing countries, except for China and Russia, who seemingly choose to ignore the climate summits in favor of pursuing their own interests.
And are these global meetings based on sound science? Let’s ask hard questions and look with fresh eyes and see what we can learn, such as what are the natural drivers of temperature and its variability?
We already know that incoming solar radiation is the primary driver of temperature. A second factor is the atmosphere, which traps heat and reflects some of it back to earth. Other factors, such as solar activity, perhaps even sunspots,doubtlessly play similar roles.
Interestingly enough, though, the Greenhouse Effect focuses on CO2 because it’s regarded as the main greenhouse gas after water vapor. Looking at the 750-million-year-old patterns, we can observesome extreme cold periods, then warm epochs punctuated by ice ages, all while CO2 levels were far above what they aretoday.
In fact, scientists now contend there is almost no correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide.
Something’s rotten in the current administration, which demands that Americans surrender their critical intelligence to a profane, fantasy “climate crisis” aimed at wasting billions of taxpayer dollars that more than likely will undermine and destabilize our economic future for generations to come.
Let’s research the “climate crisis” for ourselves and learn the truth. We simply can’t afford to take someone else’s word for it. Can we?
Top o’ the morning!