The authors of this article wasted their
time; and the Journal should not have published it.
So-called man-made "global warming" or "climate change" is a
hoax and "The Great Green Con." In another time, the
proponents of “global warming” and the “green energy” fad
would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and
claimed a “consensus” with respect to them too. The Paris
conference is a meeting of misguided Lilliputians and
charlatans. Barack Obama is among the world's elites whose
obsession and fanaticism with global warming are threats to
civilized life on this planet.
Our Earth goes through natural cycles, of warming and
cooling. It always has; and it will continue long after all
of us—and our children, and their offspring—have left this
earthly realm. As bizare as it sounds, anthropomorphic
climate change and carbon footprint have nothing to do with
the earth or her safety. They are smoke screens for wealth
transfer from developed nations to poor. This is simply
greed and avarice on a massive scale brought to you by those
who believe it is proper to redistribute wealth by any
means. "To those with need, from those with resources."
In spite of the risk of being labeled a "denier", I still
think the climate change radicals have an unfair advantage.
By making claims based on magical predictions of future
disasters, they intend to save humanity using their
"solutions". There are several main issues: 1) Predictions
are by their very nature unproven. You cannot "prove"
something that hasn't happened. As an example, I could tell
you that if you gave me $1,000 today, I could guarantee that
the sun will rise tomorrow based on my "solution" today.
When it does rise, I can name my price. 2) Fluctuations in
world wide climate has happened for millions of years, in
the short term (month to month or year to year), medium term
(centuries), and longer term (thousands of years). If you
look at some graphs, it gets warmer then drastically gets
colder. We might now be at the peak of warming meaning the
temperature might drop with no intervention. 3) Measurements
have changed. To compare today to 500 years ago is not
The stone age did not end because
we ran out of stone. If every coal-related job in the
country were to disappear tomorrow, we would have 185,000
unemployed former coal workers... that's everyone. Mining,
distribution, sales, everything. We can easily absorb those
185K into new energy industries like wind and solar. I
don't say this in an effort to refute your statements, just
to point out that there is no long-lasting and
insurmountable downside in finding alternative fuels.
But compare the air quality in Los Angeles or New York in
1972 to the air quality now, and you'll see that we can have
an impact, and we can improve the environment. On the
other side, there's a dying dirty coal industry, with heavy
investment by the author of this article in preserving what
is literally... a dinosaur. Jason - Part of your
statement is one of the issues I have with climate change
extremists. "Dying dirty coal" is not the issue anymore than
leaded gasoline was. Unleaded gasoline with catalytic
converters still gives gasoline powered automobiles.
Even if the end result of carbon dioxide is a problem,
cleaner coal production or carbon dioxide recovery might
minimize the problem. Likewise, electric powered automobiles
depend on generated electricity. As of 2014, 67% of
electricity was generated by fossil fuels. In addition, data
over long periods of time is not comparable. With today's
climate science, data based on satellites is accurate, as
well as ocean or land based. But unless I am just not aware
of it, did the American Indians collect millions of data
points before Christopher Columbus arrived? Trend
projections are best using equivalent data points. Short
term trends like years or decades are not good predictors
for long terms like centuries.