Interesting on how the Greta Clan has figured out how to take a scientific fact, turn it into a catch phrase, and create an entirely new science. Climate change is real, climate change is man made, and man made climate change is going to destroy the planet. We have to rid ourselves of all fossil fuels!
The thing with the Progressives and Radical Left, or as Spiro Agnew once labeled them, Radiclibs, is they take a narrow, almost myopic, view of any issue. They haven’t the vision to see the entirety the issue, but then that is not their design. They do this for one of two reasons.
Firstly, by taking one part of the many parts of a complex issue, they can create a mantra to match their ideology. They create a narrow drumbeat of the same narrow point. If you say it often enough, in the simplest of terms, the adherents will echo the chorus, and once convinced, everyone one else must be wrong. Once sold on the wrongness of the disbeliever, a scapegoat for their outrage is created. Woe betide the disbeliever.
Secondly, they are not deep thinkers, or thinkers at all. That would be an easy observation to make, and often times true, but they are shallow thinkers with a steadfastness. Thinking and acting in the narrowest fashion allows the Progressives to further their ultimate goal…the acquisition of power. The attainment and use of power is the Holy Grail of the Progressive/Radical Left
Yes, climate change is real. And, yes, man has had an integral part in the relationship to climate. There is plenty of scientific evidence that climate change is real. Geologists, physicists, archeologists, anthropologists will tell you that climate change is real. About a nanosecond after the formation of the earth and its atmosphere about 4.5 billion years ago, what we know as “climate” began. The climate of Earth has never been static; it has always been and will always be in a state of change, sometimes dramatic. Why is the soothsayer of weather on the news wrong so often?
Is CO2 in the atmosphere manmade? Yes, to some extent. To what extent, we really do not know. Because climate adherents say it’s so, does not make it so. Remember the “deep thinking” part?
There have been periods of great seismic activity…yes, that’s a factor of climate. Volcanoes spew vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Forest fires do the same. 800,000 years ago there was approximately a thousand times the CO2 content as now. There have been periods when temperatures soared and most of the Earth was tropical or semi tropical, with lush forests and vast oceans. At one time the Sahara Desert was verdant for long periods of time. The entire central portion of Australia was under water. There have been times when great sheets of ice covered much of the planet. There were periods of rapid cooling followed by periods of warming, then back to the cooling. Geological formations chart the impacts of historic climate change. Tree rings in the oldest of trees record years of drought and years of abundant moisture.
Around the year 450 AD, the tribes that lived along the North Sea; the Angles, Saxon, Jutes, and Frisians, invaded England. What was the impetus for those invasions? Climate. They were primarily agricultural people who farmed the fertile lowlands near the ocean. There growing seasons were short, but over time the growing seasons got longer, and the lowlands flooded more often, in many cases, permanently inundating their farmlands. Essentially, the warming climate forced them to migrate.
There have been periods when large numbers of species went extinct, and periods when new species developed and evolved. There were periods when human species were hunter-gathers. Over time, they evolved in hunter-gathers and agriculturists. That evolution had an effect on the climate in the broadest sense.
As the planter/harvester settled, they cleared forests and tilled the soil. This activity displaced the forest flora and fauna. Some plants disappeared, and forest creatures were driven to other areas. The climate of that area changed forever. As man migrated, he cleared more land; there were fewer trees to support the CO2-Oxygen cycle. Hence, it can be argued the CO2 levels would rise.
Even into the present day, many either heat their homes or supplement the heat in their homes using wood. That depletes the forests and introduces CO2 into the atmosphere, complicating the CO2/Oxygen cycle.
There are multitudinous ways in which man, plants, animals, land and water formations, and the air itself interact to influence the Earth’s climate. Volcanos still erupt. Forest fires stull burn.
One thing we must ask ourselves. What would be the effect on CO2 levels if we planted more trees and stopped clear cutting great swaths of forest. Truthfully, we really no longer need the extent of lumber to build even residential homes.
But of course, “plant trees” doesn’t sound anywhere near as impactful as “we are all going to die”.
Now, more of the deep thinking part.
If the United States were to reduce carbon emissions to zero, something that is not possible, it would make no difference at all. China and India are still among the largest emitters of CO2. How does anyone convince the Chinese or Indians to cut their emissions? The notion that the US could commit some $50 trillion (with a “T”) to combat world emissions is idiotic…nothing short of idiotic.
In addition, how does anyone convince developing and under developed countries that ending their reliance on fossil fuels is a good idea? Their first response, very logically, would be that the first world countries have all the comforts of life, an abundance of wealth, and now they wish to deprive poorer countries access to that same abundance. This is a sure path to discord between the “haves” and the “have nots” on the planet.
If people could cease the use of fossil fuels, which is not possible in the first place, but if we could, it would make only the slightest, almost unmeasurable, difference and make daily life almost unrecognizable. The simplest if things, many of the clothes we wear, our electronic devices, the tires on our electric vehicles, and so much more, come from the petro-chemical industry. Even our solar panels on the roof and the blades on the wind turbines come from petroleum derivatives.
Back to the beginning. Yes, climate change is real; always is; always is; always will be. And yes, man (and all the other living things) plays a role in the climate.
We need scientists, real scientists, not the “bandwagon” scientists who see a fat government grant, to study this.
What would happen if you powered your house with solar? Which, by the way, I do. Would the atmosphere inside your home become completely clean, free of pollutants and your CO2? Yes, surely it would be better…to an extent. But now, be a bit of a deeper thinker. What would be the effect if you more frequently changed your air filters? What would be the effect of adding house plants which take in CO2 and give off oxygen? You see, I’m not against solar and wind; I think we should work on developing them more. We need to look at complex problems and break them down into manageable approaches, but as I said, for Progressives, solving the problem is not their goal.
What would happen if we took the wasted money being used to promote and subsidize electric vehicles and used it instead to plant trees in vacant farmlands, highway medians (yes, in places it is done), require the replacement of trees cut, and requiring the planting of trees in the sprawling home developments? I’m sure, we have the genius to come up with a variety of ways to mitigate the deterioration of the planet. Let’s stop the Chicken Little Approach.