I’ve been meaning to do this post for some time. One of the main reasons preventing me is I have a lot more digging to do, for having gone the rabbit hole I realize there are many twists and turns to explore. When recently I shared an article on my Facebook page: “Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax” I was taken to task, which I took as fair game, but this did help spur me to write as I do this stake in the ground posting.
While I recognize climate change, and in particular global warming, is real and must not be ignored (but how significant, I have yet to reach a fully rounded view) there are many other important matters I focus on ahead of this, e.g. Culture Wars, Globalism, the Gospel, free speech, pro life, social injustice and of course Brexit. My last post was to do with the biggie of the hour: Brexit (see here), which for some is the biggest issue facing us at this time, but not everyone agrees, e.g. one friend who fearing the catastrophic danger to the planet if the issue is not addressed wrote: “Far more important, is climate change. Three weeks after the United Nations issued a sobering climate report that called for “rapid and unprecedented” changes in energy use, a study examining ocean temperatures suggests that global warming could happen at a faster pace than previously believed. The study, published in Nature Wednesday and conducted by researchers at Princeton University and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, estimated that the world’s oceans absorbed 60% more heat energy between 1991 and 2016 than previous studies have indicated. That could indicate the Earth is warming faster than scientists have been estimating”.
I have a lot more research to do before coming to a view as to the extent of the climate change that is taking place, the likely impact this will have on the planet and the measures that need to be in place in order to stop the worst effects of climate change that is a result of human activity, and maybe be this will be a follow on to this post, although I admit to my limitations and priorities. There is little doubt the overwhelming consensus, including by among the scientific community, is that climate change, in particular global warming, as a result of human activity, is real and is preventable and because of the impending disaster steps need to be taken, but what steps? I am mindful last week of the children who bunked of school in order to protest climate change and the vitriolic exchanges between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi, with the former emphasizing secure borders and the latter climate control. These are two of many images before me why I need to wade in with a view, albeit with the caveat that these deliberations are work in progress.
It does seem to me, and if there are two sides to the debate, that the issue of paramount importance is one of truth, but what is the truth on this vexed question of climate change. While confessing to not having a fully thought through definitive view because I have not sufficient examined all the salient evidence, I do have a view and significantly as far as this article is concerned, concerns that I feel I should air. The first is that it bothers me that our children may be indoctrinated. While supporters of more stringent climate change prevention measures may laud the passion of our younger generation, there are many other important issues and they are likely being fed one side of the argument. There are those with credibility who have questioned the simplistic statement that what is needed is a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and robust and punitive measures to ensure this, their voices are rarely heard and when they do show their heads above the parapet they are often viciously shot down. While Trump can be taken to task on many things, secure borders and protecting the environment are not either or issues and both need to be addressed. While some may despair at his fixation with promoting fossil fuels and withdrawing from something as important as the Paris Climate Change Accord, I am not convinced these are necessarily wrong decisions, although environmental concerns and the need for a right balance remain.
The issue for me is not so much dismissing the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion but more one of over extrapolation and ideological indoctrination in the light of the major decisions that can be and are being made. It seems wrong to me that the USA economy should suffer and emerging economies like India and China should not to anywhere near the same extent, and I also question some (but not all) the steps being taken to ensure a CO2 emission reduction. I worry about the globalist and socialist agendas and that to do with controlling all aspects of human life through regulation and more taxation, and it is those calling for these things who seem to be shouting loudest about climate control. I worry about the cost of energy, which invariably affects the most vulnerable members of our societies. I worry when those who should loudest on these things benefit most financially from an alternative energy agenda. I worry that in focusing on climate change, we may be losing focus on other issues that also affect humanity, and thereby lose balance.
I suppose what I am saying, is while I am all for protecting the environment and our planet, which was mandated by the Almighty for human kind in the first chapter of Genesis, I am also bothered that fact is not always separated from fiction, of the tendency toward avoidable and more polarization and that the move to more control could have a detrimental spiritual, social and economic affect.
JRB Publications 
WWF have said that we are the first generation to realise that we are destroying our world and the last generation to be able to do anything about it. Recent debate around what the individual should do (abstain from) misses the point when America, China, India and much of the third world, alongside Arabia, maintain and/or promote fossil fuel use. Local authorities in our country that decline such as wind turbines are not helping, neither is the hold on renewables by companies that depend on fossil for their main income.
Okay, respectfully, I will attempt to bring another side to this discussion. First, the adequacy of accurately plotting enough stations, and one’s not changed by the surroundings as when cities are raised (i.e. In the oceans, in the air, on land, and perhaps thousands, even millions) is still in progress, and anything before a hundred years ago is suspect. Second, drive across America, including Utah, take long plane trips and ocean voyages, then calculate the amount of air and water, not to mention land, and we’ll realize this world is much bigger than the globes we look at. Third, research the gulf oil spill and one will realize the clean-up efforts did nothing, that little organisms ate the oil as they’ve always eaten oil pouring up from the ground naturally, before the waters simply dissipate it. Fourth, the temperature change we’re talking about is only 1/2 degree, if it can even be proven, and no one knows if the warming can be a positive change (i.e. Why is warmer bad?). Fifth, even by scientists own admissions, the Earth goes through changes and has been for as long as the Earth has been here (Climate change before man.). After all, the universe is a mystery, the sun and Earth goes through cycles, and there are many more aspects to the Earth then we know about, including what happens inside the Earth that we never touch. Sixth, we’re hearing too many scientists supporting global, man-made changes, but there must be those who know we don’t know enough, and why don’t we hear them? Seventh, in the 70’s, the same or similar scientists thought we were going into a deep freeze, yet it never happened, so how can they suddenly refute themselves and still call themselves experts? Eight, we’re hearing too many people, without any read evidence or knowledge comment on what they haven’t really researched and simply cannot know. Emotions don’t drive facts.
*We’re all up for real science. I’m all for improving the environment and not polluting. But for practical reasons and not in any way because I think we can destroy the Earth. It’s simply too big, adjusts for everything, and has handled much bigger incidences than anything we have or can do. Don’t want to contaminate the ground waters. We want the air to be healthy so those with asthma don’t have to suffer. We like our forests and cities to be clean of pollution, for pollution looks ugly, not natural, and we don’t want animals choking on cans and such. Cleaning up is a good thing.
Just the very fact that we are still debating this when the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it IS happening and it will eventually be catastrophic unless we do something about it, is frustrating and maddening. Last year there were wildfires within the Arctic Circle. In the Uk there was a prolonged heatwave while in Portugal, the country where I live, temperatures were below normal. Then suddenly they skyrocketed and we were confined to the house for 4 days because it was so hot outside. On the news extreme weather events seemed to happen all the time https://news.sky.com/story/extreme-weather-2018-snow-in-the-sahara-wildfires-and-typhoons-11471584.
Climate change is happening now and scientists are warning us if we don’t cut emissions we will be moving into dangerous territory. We have about 10 years to limit the changes.
It amazes me the capacity of human beings to ignore things they don’t like. What I would ask those who fear ‘globalism’ and ‘government interference’ is HOW are you going to get those industries to change without co-ordinated government action. Companies are focused on profit. Their CEOs believe their wealth will protect them. Ordinary people demand cheap energy. Each nation competes with the others and the wealthier ones won’t make the changes because the developing ones won’t. In Brazil Bolsonaro wants to cut down huge swathes of the Amazon to develop the Brazilian economy and when criticized, points out that we have already cut down our forests and now demand he preserve his…
Personally I don’t see that there is a will to do enough. Only when it is too late will governments wake up and realize that all our petty concerns of Brexit etc are nothing compared to this. I think God I am in my 60’s so won’t have to see the worst that is coming – but your children and grandchildren will – and they will curse us for not acting when we had the information and the time to do something about it…
No, that’s another catch phrase. The science is not settled. Statements and phrases do not change reality. If I was standing in a room of 100 people, and everyone wanted to follow the leader walking off a cliff, I would be the 1 out of 99 even though I would be unpopular. They went from global freezing in the 70s, to global warming, and when people wouldn’t buy into that, they called it climate change. Why climate change? Because there’s nothing to prove. The climate is always changing, is never the same year to year. Besides, since the 90s, we’ve been on a cooling trend. That one, according to available data, is settled. Cycle. Everything goes through cycles. And the ingredients involved in all that happens is far too big for any supercomputer. But it’s easy for people to believe in man-made global changes, even though we don’t even know if any changes are good or bad, but everything reverts eventually, or at least, it always has. This is simply for readers who want to listen and consider. I have no desire to change one who’s mind is already set.