“Bought and paid for ‘science’ is no science at all. It’s politics by stealth. Are you ready to give up your way of life for a pig ‘n a poke?”
The Election Series number 2
Over the years, I have written numerous articles on climate change using historical data to demonstrate that much of the hysterical press coverage is more about a political agenda driven by the trillions of dollars of public money up for grabs than science. Always follow the money.
From a historical perspective, the Earth’s climate is in constant change. There have been at least five ice ages and innumerable “ice expansions” during Earth’s history. The last ice expansion often called the Little Ice Age, ended only 170 years ago! And there have been multiple periods where the Earth was so warm that there were no polar caps. Even the Arctic Ocean’s ice packs have come and gone over the last few thousand years at least (here) and (here).
Droughts, massive floods, and other recorded natural climate events have occurred throughout human history, about which we know little.
The forces of nature, both climatic and geophysical, are so dynamic and beyond a knowable scale that predicting them is a tad arrogant.
Then there is the Sun and if it has or does not have a preeminent role in Earth’s climate (here) that has been going on for decades. [It always seems intuitive that the Sun, a nuclear fusion reaction 333,000 times the mass of Earth and pushing out 384.6 septillion watts of energy per second, might have a really significant effect.]
Other climate events caused by volcanic explosions have altered the course of nations and history.
For example, on June 8, 1783, Iceland’s Laki volcano ripped open in a devastating fissure eruption that changed weather patterns over much of the world for three years. Benjamin Franklin contemporaneously wrote about the frigid weather and a “constant fog” over “a great part of North America.” In cold Europe, crops withered, leading some historians to connect the consequences of Laki to the start of the French Revolution. Japan recorded a “year without summer.” China and India had severe droughts and famines. Cold weather reached deep into Egypt, and the attendant loss of rice crops caused a famine that may have claimed 3 million people.
I’ve (along with many others) reported on the breathtaking fraud in climate propaganda over the past two decades, from the University of East Anglia and the “hockey stick” revelations to NASA and NOAA in our own government, among many data manipulation revelations (more here). The race for trillions of dollars has corrupted the search for facts.
[Of course, the “computer models” that drive the projected future climate data are the same models that drove the Wuhan pandemic crisis – none of which – not one – proved even close to accurate. How encouraging is that?]
In recent years, the debate has shifted to lowering carbon dioxide gas – CO2 – in the atmosphere. Supposedly the build-up of human-introduced CO2 is directly responsible for climate warming. CO2 is 0.0415 percent of the atmosphere – not .4, but rather .0415 percent. However, some claim this is the highest level in a million years. But that, too, seems unsupportable, if irrelevant. Two eminent scientists claim CO2 levels are, in reality, lower than ever.
The two scientists, William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus of Princeton, and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus of MIT on June 17, 2022, issued a 28-page response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate change rule-making (their complete response here). It was in answer to the rule titled “The Enhancement and Standardizations of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” (This complex rule could cost businesses billions of dollars in new disclosure burdens.)
Their rebuttal to the climate proposal clearly presents the selective data that the SEC used as its basis for the proposed rule and outlines the intentional fraud and manipulation of science for political and financial gain.
Here are key takeaways: [Associated graphs are found in the response.]
For hundreds of millions of years, when CO2 was very high, temperatures were low, and conversely, high temperatures corresponded to low CO2 levels.
Record low temperatures occurred when CO2 levels were at a record high of about 7,000 ppm compared to today’s CO2 of 415 ppm. They were highest approximately 60 million years ago when CO2 levels were low.
Temperatures have been much higher than today for the last 600 million years, and life on Earth has thrived.
CO2 levels have sharply declined over the last 180 million years from 2800 ppm to today’s 415 PPM – a level nearly at the 150 PPM minimum required to keep plants from dying of CO2 starvation.
The two professors present a brutal rhetorical beatdown on compromised scientific inquiry and call out “peer review” as used in new climate studies as “pal review” where only the “official” science is allowed into publications. They stated, “Misrepresentations, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence [used as evidence of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels].”
Piggybacked to this is the all-out media and political class assault to portray any deviation from the “settled science” and “scientific consensus” mantras as science “deniers” who should be removed from public platforms. Some politicians, public advocacy groups, and even the UN’s Unesco (here) have called for laws to make climate change denial illegal. So much for scientific integrity and inquiry, not to mention free speech and all that antiquated stuff.
Regardless of the integrity of data or the reality of climate change, if there is any at all, the Green New Deal and its price tag of trillions of dollars is certainly not the answer.
The modern world – our world – was built on energy. And that energy is provided almost exclusively using coal or petroleum with a too-low percentage of nuclear power. They are cheap and efficient. And God has blessed the United States with the largest oil and natural gas reserves on the planet – enough to power the nation for 500 years. In addition, every year, gas-powered automobiles and natural gas electricity production have made considerable gains in limiting emissions.
Every alternative to petroleum, specifically solar and wind power and electric vehicles, has significant problems, and all of them are environmentally disastrous to build. If the nation cares about being stewards of the good Earth we’ve been given, then solar and wind aren’t the answer for anything other than limited and confined projects. Perhaps electric cars will be cheap and efficient at some point – but that is not anytime soon. The raw material alone for these “green” alternatives is the most destructive mining in the world – a great deal of which is done by child labor in third-world countries. [Twenty-five pounds of lithium alone required for battery storage requires 500 tons of raw ore.] And most of the market in raw rare-earth metals required is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and the government of the self-styled enemy of the US.
As a writer, I’m sure none of my efforts move the needle much, if at all. This debate isn’t so much about facts and science as it is about the future, how we govern ourselves, and who gets to decide that question. And on one side of the debate are folks who want power – the power to change your life forever. They use emotionalism the way a clown uses a jovial disguise.
But when you determine to turn the world as we know it upside down, you have a responsibility to be dad-gum sure your prescription for this new world the radical left prescribes is workable, affordable, and efficient.
That is not where we’re at by a long shot. Bought and paid for ‘science’ is no science at all. It’s politics by stealth.
The question in the elections of 2022 is simple. Are you ready to give up your way of life for a pig ‘n a poke? A guess? A promise from a politician?
[PHOTO: West Virginia wind turbines]
