“We’re facing down the barrel of a gun with climate change, and particularly young people are looking for businesses and government to step up,” cofounder of Allbirds Joey Zwillinger.
This Begs the Question: If it’s a Gun is it a Toy Gun?
The facts do not support the statement as far as staring down the barrel of a gun with climate. I wrote earlier about the false parallels between Climate and Covid, that Covid is a pressing issue. Climate is not. Climate and the environment should not be confused as the same thing. The Environment and its cleanliness is a pressing issue, since I do believe we are stewards of the earth. The hiding of the fact that the US is a leader in reduction of air, land and sea pollution, is meant to feed into the missive that our way of life is ruining the planet. As in so many things we see the slight of hand where an agenda hijacks the true issue. However a common denominator is the fear that has been pushed. I certainly understand the fear with an unknown disease that is here now. But that ignores the fact that the vast majority of people with severe results had pre-existing conditions, which should give us reason to realistically assess the fear factor for the average person. But inclimate, As we have shown so many times, there is a fallacy with the idea that a) man is causing so much of the warming and b) that the warming is bad unless metrics such as Climate deaths plummeting , Personal GDP, Life expectancy, population is going up, more food being grown than ever, the planet greener than its ever been in the satellite era, the reduction of strong tornadoes and the intensity and frequency of major hurricane hits on the our coast ( Though we have been front and center on this years threat, similar to 2005, and 2017) Wildfire acres burnt less than 20% of what it was in the early 20th century, (I can go on and on with this) are bad. They are, if your goal is to suppress progress brought about by American exceptionalism. But you know the drill. So fear and fallacy are common in both, one may be reasonable as a disease with no known cure like this, is an event that can evoke fear. However given mans constant adaptation to climate over the years, and what is turning out to be metrics that show things are better, that fear factor is overdone based on fallacy.
There are ways to balance the co2 increase no matter what the cause, and I discussed that in the previous blog and others. So while there are suspected cures for Covid, there are real “cures” for those that fear co2 and you can see it in the seasonal decrease of co2 when the northern hemisphere greens. Again I have written about this before, but might as well show it again, The 2 year co2 Keeling Curve courtesy of Scripps institution:
The intuitive and easy, relative to the destructive Green New Deal, is to plant more trees globally. If you love the environment, why would you stand against that anyway?
All this climate hysteria is revealed in Michael Schellenberg’s book,
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
It is one thing for me to say it, but when a prime Catastrophic Global Warming person comes out like this, it’s a different, almost impossible level to fathom on a personal level, because of the intimidation that is put on anyone who dare breaks the ranks of that movement. Along with Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, it exposes this for what it is, little about science, but simply a tool for another agenda which the reader can figure out.
Funding. It is darn near impossible for anyone on the CAGW side of this argument to reverse course. Companies and Countries have invested what is now trillions of dollars into something that leaves them powerless to back down from. Grants and funding to our universities are heavily tilted toward proving the catastrophic Climate change missive. (which of course begs the question if it’s a done deal, why are we researching it any more? Water freezing at 32 is settled science, Gravity is settled science, The sun is darn hot is settled science. So if this is settled science why is this continuing?) Just try to get a grant that would prove the opposite, or even raise a question. Which means if we are still researching it, it is not settled science, and science demands opposing arguments, something that has gotten shut down. Freedom of speech is another victim of this agenda
Consider this: Does not the missive of Fear, Fallacy and Funding, in light of the improving human condition, contradict life itself? Doesn’t the shutting down of ideas contradict freedom? Isn’t the limiting of energy, the continued draining of the average persons funds via something like the Green New Deal, contradict the pursuit of happiness? ( not to mention the censoring of certain kind of talk, including spiritual, one can argue that hits all 3 at once)
A possible, if not likely, conclusion, is all this is designed to go against the number one principle of the foundation of this country. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If an agenda limits all that,what can its purpose possibly be?
The triple crown of inexpensive methods of solving the co2 fear, The Trillion Tree initiative, Nuclear power and Carbon Capture should appeal across the board instead of the 10 trillion dollar Green New Deal. But again this would lead to a lot of funding drying up and also mean the problem goes away, meaning a lot of money was wasted both already spent or invested, or for future considerations
How is this like Covid? Without getting into too much detail, there is great resistance to methods that have appeared to have success in other areas. What is Japan doing,1000 deaths in a country of 120 million? Taiwan 10 deaths in a country of 23 million.South Korea 51 million people, 300 deaths. So without lockdowns, how did they do it? Theories range from lifestyle, enhanced immunity to the disease, and a nearly detection and treatment regimen, which is relatively inexpensive. I have no idea what the answer is, but its worth looking at. I do think though, that the common denominator here is that with what is now trillions invested in fighting this, it is going to be hard to be purely objective, it has to be. I know full well in just what I do how hard that can be ( take the current tropical system coming at the US ( this was written Wednesday). My company was warning clients and anyone on our site, a week ago about this threat, so there is a willingness to stay with the idea. And that is only over a week and one weather event) But imagine if the stakes are so much higher, in larger aspects, economic, political, etc.
An extra common denominator is the state of humility needed to be objective. Very very tough For if You have sunk everything you have into something you believe in, be it co2 destroying the planet of in finding this cure, how can you turn back? I can see how I can be wrong, and that perhaps these parallels I am showing are fallacies in themselves. But doesn’t questioning serve a purpose toward the common good, if it’s the common good being pursued? As I love to do, I will leave the reader the freedom to decide on these matters.