Look at the major issues of the day. They all have one thing in common: There are questionable ideas on the table that deserve debate yet the side pushing them wants all debate shut down and demands blind faith.

Over the past couple of weeks, the stepping up of the climate rhetoric has reached campaign ad levels. Talk about declaring climate emergencies and “saving the world” are appearing.  I am sure there is a tidal wave of this coming in the upcoming election cycle.

Most of the people on my side of the issue know and understand CO2 is in the equation for climate, but question what it can do given all the other natural drivers. We also understand the idea that there is valuable research and points being made but they have to face challenges of the known. to make the unknown, become a known. Finally, the “so what” factor kicks in, adapt to the challenge and move on.

It seems to be a common thread that people on my side of the issue love to debate and engage (us old fogies were taught that when we were young). I am being asked not to question, and just obey. So this whole attitude of obey without question what you are told is kind of foreign to me.

BELIEVING AND KNOWING ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS. You can believe something will happen but until and unless it does, you do not know it. So you can believe there is a climate emergency but if you don’t look at the droves of competing evidence, YOU DO NOT KNOW IT.

This graphic tears apart the entire climate emergency idea. How is a climate optimum in recorded history, now a climate emergency, even if it is not yet as warm as the climate optimum?

image.gifYou would have to rewrite history and deny the known to say this is an emergency,

Let’s look at the definition of those 2 words:

Optimum: most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.

Emergency: a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

So what we are asked to believe, is to save the world we have to mobilize on a war footing. To prevent a climate emergency that in the entire known history of the planet was an optimum. Does that make sense? Do people pushing this even know the actual history of the planet’s temperatures?

Here are other questions. Why is it that all of these fluctuations were NOT caused by humans? Why does this one have to be caused by us? Isn’t it far more likely that the cause is the same as it was before, given the relationship of co2 to temps?

This was a great tweet from my friend Gregory Wrightstone who is a well-known author and Geologist:

image.gifThe graphic is from Lord Chris Monckton who, using the IPCC’s own formula shows the diminishing return on temperatures with CO2 increase. Dr. Will Happer has been trying to get that across also. The fact is the increase is not 4-5C as the hysteria pushes, it is more likely capped at about 1.2 C. If so, given the planets warmth (remember its distorted, much of it in the coldest places at their coldest time of the year for instance, THERE IS NO ARCTIC WARMING IN THE SUMMER) much of mans influence is over.

So, if it was all from co2, it has done much of what it can do anyway. Since plants grow best at 1500 ppm perhaps we are heading toward some equilibrium for plant and animal.

However, the question to the lockstep left is how do you reconcile these ideas about a climate emergency and the idea we have to save the planet when we are nearing a climate optimum?  My equation, the effect of the sun, the cyclical nature of the ocean, stochastic events plus the very design of a system. Of which has most of the stored energy in the oceans and are over 2/3  in the Southern Hemisphere. With a major natural imbalance with much of the land being in the northern hemisphere, an ocean around the north pole, a continent around the south pole (which is like a giant ice cube) and is rotating elliptically around a star that varies in its total solar irradiance, FAR OUTWEIGHS in effect the increase of 1 molecule of CO2 out of every 10 thousand molecules of air over a 100 year period. It seems intuitive given the history of the planet, that the cause is mainly natural.

Now, just how much warming are you going to save? The Obama administration EPA said the same restrictions that the Green New Deal (btw stealing from FDR is rich, while he was progressive, he couldn’t get an elected dog catcher in today’s democratic party and that goes for Truman and Kennedy) is largely advocating at a price tag of 3 to 10 trillion to save .03C in 100 years. That would show the rest of the world we are serious.

Hard enough to get a trade deal with China. Are these people willing to go to war to save the planet with nations that do not wish to follow our example? (Which is what the acknowledged real purpose of Obamas EPA was) What if other nations, now stronger than a weakened US due to the draconian steps taken to combat the climate “emergency”, do not wish to obey the suggested course of action? Mencken, another democrat comes to mind:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary…… The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Is not the climate agenda the very example of what Mencken was saying so many years ago?

My take is that someone could ride this issue all the way to the top. Laugh now, but as stated before, the America first crowd has to come up with some plan that will neutralize an increasing voter block of younger people. People that find saving the planet or having their loans forgiven to vote for these things without thinking about the consequences. When you are not taught to question, then all you do is obey. I am saying there has to be something that at least appeals to the sense of objectivity, humility, and productivity for our nation going forward. So that it can not destroy the very livelihood of the country that made it possible for those younger people to do what they can do today, or their future which would be impacted severely by socialism/marxism. Young people 30 years ago fought like tigers to get rid of the eastern bloc, caused by the want to be like America and envied our freedoms. It strikes me as ironic that these movements are trying to do the opposite here.

But think about it. In how many cases do you see just one side of the issue being fed down the throat of people? Many blast Fox because of their strong opinion lineup but the people on Tucker, Sean and Laura in that 8-11 time period love having people on to debate them. Yet for all their individual prowess, they are stacked against more networks that simply push the agenda du jour down the throat of the American people. You can take any issue out there, and you will find the same kind of attitude that fuels the fire in the beast trying to do away with what has given us a chance to do what we do today. Climate is but one head of that beast but it is being pushed out there front and center. I don’t think there is any reason for this being a big issue given the known history of the planet. Instead, it is a means to an end, a weapon now  used to change the nation to the country people in the Eastern Bloc looked to throw off the shackles of communism.  Yet, because it is political,  it is not going to go away and needs to be questioned and therefore, responded to.

On another note, All the best to everyone for the Holidays, May God Bless America.

Author

  • Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore.