Politicizing climate change

The climate changes — and always has and always will.

This subject has been politicized, monetized and weaponized to the point where in the public domain it cannot be examined, debated scientifically and rationally. Most data that the media and politicians use to push this subject is found in global climate computer MODELS, that by the way, have been incorrect and adjusted many times.

For example, since 1998 the data has not shown a strong warming trend, and it’s right about the time this information was released the term was changed from “global warming” to “climate change.” The fact is, politicians and advocacy groups have popularized the terms “settled science” and “scientific consensus.” Anyone that knows about science, or the scientific method, knows that these terms are antithetical to science. These terms are used to shut down debate and the presentation of contrary facts, opinions and theories.

In 1976 there was a major study that appeared in Time and Newsweek magazines that declared with all “scientific” proof that we were in a global cooling trend which would be disaster for man. At the same time there were claims of disaster if the earth’s population exceeded 5 billion. Then in the 1990s global warming became the fear and the UN climate report and model was polarized, resulting in calls to rein in the U.S. lifestyle, economy and capitalism in general.

This is the heart of this movement’s agenda.

With climate change they can never be wrong: record warm weather, it’s climate change; record cold, it’s climate change; record drought, it’s climate change; record floods, it’s climate change... The empirical historic data demonstrates that, NO, in fact hurricanes are not worse, nor more frequent than ever. But every time there is a WEATHER event, it is now catastrophic man-made climate change involved.

Greenland used to have Nordic peoples farming it before it became covered in ice and snow; yes the climate changes.

Several times, in cycles, the entire northern portion of America was a massive glacier that melted, created the Great Lakes and carved the Grand Canyon; yes the climate changes.

There used to be huge interior seas covering portions of the continents; yes the climate changes.

What farting cow, power plant, or SUV caused those epic events? Ancient glacial ice-core studies, geologic evidence, and tree-ring studies demonstrate significant global warming and cooling cycles existed long before man’s influence was a part of the ecosystem.

These ancient climate changes involved temperatures much more significant than anything predicted in the UN climate computer model.

One solar event can change the climate more than any of the temperature changes predicted/estimated in the UN model.

So logically this all begs the following questions:

•?Are the models accurate (honest)?

•?There is not scientific consensus, so why are we not allowing the entire fact-set to be disseminated and examined? Why do we allow this subject to be so politicized and one-sided? Why don’t we allow our students to receive the entire set of facts and debate?

•?To what extent does man’s activity change the climate? To what extent can mankind realistically modify its activities to effect any changes?

•?Is .05 to 2.0 degrees in warming over 100 years a net negative world-wide? Because there are studies that show more CO2 and warmer temps will cause more greening of the planet, which in turn may off-set the removal of rain forest in some regions, off-set warming and be more “food productive.”

Does this contemplation and information come as a surprise to our kids and most of the public? Unfortunately, yes it does. I fear a world where science and debate are overtaken by propaganda and politics.