I have readers who question my skepticism of government action to ameliorate climate change. Unbelievable, eh?
The reason I’ve arrived here is that more and more misdirected business decisions are taking funds from worthwhile endeavors and being used to line the pockets of lobbyists or their bosses.
“The fine dust that man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees.” Dr. S.I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University went on to predict in 1971… “Such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
An ice age is indeed a terrifying prospect. While raising a garden in northwestern Montana, we had a killing frost in July and August. I’ve had a tiny taste of it.
We have had cold periods in human history igniting hellacious disasters of famine, disease, war, and even widespread cannibalism. The predictions of warming are welcome in comparison, even one published on Propublica that was sent to me by a friend several years ago. That prediction included the southern states as being uninhabitable. A population shift northward would find open country and vast expanses of land previously underutilized because of a short growing season. A potential escape from a climate disaster is within reason.
“A population shift” should stand out as a solution if there is significant warming. Like my dad said, “Fly across this country and you will see the folly of thinking a few little exhaust pipes can change the weather.” Take a second and compare a balance sheet; change the weather or move. Even while ignoring cost, as is the norm with many of these highfalutin goals (mostly political campaign promises), are not attainable.
To justify these plainly feeble attempts NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) routinely “adjusts” past data using complex statistical models. A look at those adjustments over the past 100 years shows the earlier years adjusted downward and more recent years adjusted up in order to fabricate a warming trend.
Evidence of human-caused global warming is still circumstantial and data show warmer periods during times when human influences could not be a factor.
In order to avoid a civil dialog about climate change, some proponents say “he doesn’t believe in global warming” or “he’s a denier” trying to associate climate skepticism with religious heretics or a holocaust denier for crying out loud.
It is about time we ask who benefits from the reaction to the global warming theory. If you hate big business it is time to join the “deniers.” Climate change is the epitome of big business exploiting mass hysteria through stealth totalitarianism. It is not kind and generous, it is sociopathic greed.