By Rich Kozlovich
Once again we're seeing emotional claims the world only has seconds before it burns up. President Biden claims: ‘Not A Joke’ — Global Warming the ‘Greatest Threat’ Facing America! Of course there are a lot of people who think the man uttering those words represents a far greater threat to America, and the world, than anything the climate does.
Then we have Governor Inslee of Washington state who claims, We’re Just Out of Time’ on Climate, Have to Act Now:
“We’re at the buzzer. We’ve got to take the shot. There’s no more time.” “I saw a headline that said that time is running out. Time is out. We’re at the buzzer. We’ve got to take the shot. There’s no more time. The chickens have come home to roost on carbon pollution. Our forests are burning. We have no water for our farmers, for our fish. Our kids can’t go outside in the summer because of the smoke from our burning forests. We’re just out of time. We’ve got to act.”
I've been watching and/or writing about this for almost 25 years, and the outcry "We must do something now" never stops. No matter how many deadlines we pass and nothing happens, "we must do something now or we're doomed", continues like a broken record.
Then there's John Kerry, Climate czar John Kerry wrong again: SD wind turbine plant to shut doors, 300 jobs lost, a so man devoted to being wrong I think it's a religious conviction for him. He claimed the Arctic ice would be melted by 2013. Facts and reality are really irritating aren't they? So what's he touting now? We only have nine years left! The fact is these misfits have been so stunningly wrong in their predictions over the last fifty years there's absolutely no reason to believe anything they say or predict.
From claims we would see the end of oil by 1977, to a 2014 prediction we only had 500 days left before "climate chaos", and yet in contrast, in 1970 Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared:
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
As I have been watching this "Global Warming is the world's greatest threat" farce play out I have come to notice that the Green Movement has become broken down into two main categories over this.
The Warmers and the Wilders.
Warmers are those who subscribe to all the fantasy that's part and parcel of Anthropogenic Climate Change. They demand dramatic changes from industrialized societies because they claim the world is at a tipping point to disaster if we don’t stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere. As David Hansen claimed in his book, “Storms of My Grandchildren” that we were facing a "sweltering Earth devoid of life”.
All of this in spite of the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is a good thing for plants and animals, of which mankind’s total contribution is insignificant to the overall volume, especially when compared to one volcanic eruption.
Wilders is my term for those who insist that more land be devoted to wildlife, especially wildlife that may be endangered. This includes animals, plants and even bugs. They irrationally believe that every species must be saved at any cost in order for life to continue to exist.
modern Druids would have us believe that all life is so interconnected
that the loss of one species would cause overwhelming disaster. History
of course shows that this is blatant nonsense because over 95% of all
species that has ever lived has gone extinct.
What I find fascinating about this is many of these people are Darwinian evolutionists and supposedly believe in survival of the fittest. Why then do they attempt to save species that are clearly biologically incompetent? The greenies seem to continually suffer from cognitive dissonance: Holding two diametrically opposing views in their heads at the same time and believe that both are correct? Evolution and the Earth Goddess Gaia.
Thomas Sowell once said that there were three questions that must be answered by those who demand change.
- Compared to what?
- At what cost?
- What hard evidence do you have?
I don’t think that those are unreasonable questions since most of what
the greenies promote is unworkable and expensive. Let’s take a few examples.
The greenies had always been against nuclear power. When this CO2 issue came up regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there were some who changed their views and decided that nuclear was acceptable to save the planet. That went over with the greenies like an act of treason, and they were promptly vilified by the rest of the green community. At this point the Wilders and the Warmers decided to agree that nuclear always was, and will always be, evil.
Previously the greenies touted the idea that everything should be changed from nuclear, coal and oil based energy sources to natural gas. However the warmers decided that natural gas is bad because it emits CO2 into the atmosphere. So now they are all on board with the idea that nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas energy based sources are completely evil.
What about hydroelectric? No exhausts, no pollution of any kind! Good, right? Yes, if you are a Warmer. But not if you are a Wilder! You see hydroelectric alters the natural flow of rivers and changes the environment for so many fish and plants. So hydroelectric is out too.
All the greenies were absolutely in love with bio-fuels at one time. An all natural "sustainable" energy source. Remember when that was the rallying cry when they tried to convince the world we were going to run our of oil? Well, the Warmers thought, and many still do, biofuel is the cat’s pajamas. However, the Wilders are against it because they have discovered that everything their adversaries have been saying right along is right. Bio-fuel from food was driving up the price of food worldwide. That meant more land had to be cultivated to grow enough food to feed the world - and our gas tanks.
|This is the main social impact of bio-fuels. |
So, naturally the Wilders specifically hate it because more and more land mass is being devoted to growing corn and
other commodities thereby eliminating forest areas for wild animals. So,
that introduces another conflict between the Warmers and the Wilders! The Wilders have also pointed out that forests are being stripped around the
world to provide organic material for cellulose based fuels. So now the Wilders want the government subsidies stopped for biomass fuel
production, and without those subsidies biomass fuel cannot exist.
Wind energy is one of the most beloved sources of energy by the Warmers. However the Wilders point out that these gigantic fans are killing birds and bats at such an alarming rate that wind energy is wreaking havoc with those populations, including endangered species, and in massively large numbers. If a small fraction of that number was killed by any traditional energy program they would be put out of business by the federal government under the Endangered Species Act.
Solar energy has been one of the great promotions of the green movement. Only it would take untold massive acreage to supply the nation with the needed energy to live our lives in the manner we have become accustomed. The Warmers are willing to do this, but the Wilders point out that this amount of acreage will disrupt far too much habitat. And naturally that will affect wildlife and of course, including way too many tortoise, some of whom are endangered. Wow!
Something that isn’t mentioned nearly enough is that even if the world changed from traditional sources of energy, i.e., power plants, to solar and/or wind as our primary energy sources, we would still have to build and maintain traditional power plants as a back-up.
The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun
doesn’t always shine. That means we will be paying for energy we don’t
use in order to pay for energy we don’t need, and power plants can't just be turned on and off like a light switch. They're always running, they have to because it takes a long time to cool down their furnaces to shut them off, and it takes a long time to slowly take them down or bring them up to temperature in order to generate power without damaging the furnaces. That means they're always running and burning fuel for these furnaces, even if their not producing energy.
The greenies are against every known source of energy production known to mankind, so here's the conundrum for the Warmers and the Wilders. What are their answers to Thomas Sowell's three questions?
Question: As opposed to what?
Answer: They are offering nothing that is better than what we have, and what they are offering is opposed by many in their own camp.
Question: How much will it cost?
Answer: The financial costs are completely unsustainable and the social costs are morally unsustainable.
Question: What hard evidence do you have?
Answer: Everything they tout ends up being so full of holes that for all practical purposes their "evidence" is a lie.
Now these are the questions we need to be asking ourselves:
- How long should we have wait for them to come up with a viable solution to any of these imaginary issues they're constantly caterwauling about?
- How long before we come to the realization that the
green movement is terrific at finding fault, but they are beyond clueless
when it comes to finding solutions? Especially for imaginary problems.
- How long will it take for us to realize that all these modern advances we've created via inexpensive and readily available energy, all of which they decry, has been wonderful for humanity and the most advanced nations have been the most effective in dealing with environmental issues?
- How long before we realize that history has shown everything they offer as solutions to every green issue has left dystopia in its wake wherever their "solutions" were adopted? And that history is incontestable.
- How long before society realizes this isn't about the environment, it's about power and control by misanthropic left wing radicals?
These shouldn’t be difficult questions, even for the most casual observer. Their misanthropic history should make the answer to these questions axiomatic. To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
Appeasement leads to the attainment of someone else’s goals.