THE BOOGEYMAN IS CLIMATE POLICY NOT CLIMATE CHANGE
AAAAAAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!!! Melting ice caps, brown polar bears,
hurricanes, droughts, floods, syphilis (I think), cold winters, warm winters,
lightning, terrorism (seriously), weed, tidal waves, indigestion, and a whole
other list of holy horrors are at our threshold because of climate change and
that climate change is due to *bony finger extends from screen* YOU!
Well,
that’s what’s being fed to us and our kids, AND for years now. I just have to
ask, is climate change still a thing?
Let’s
start with the fact that its beginning was dubious. When I was in short pants,
it was ‘global warming’. That didn’t perfectly fit the reality of what was
going on, so the environmental profiteers figured the more all-encompassing ‘climate
change’ would serve their purpose better. It’s a nice catch-all for having an
explanation for any question no one’s asked yet. And it can insulate from the
ever-growning list of failed predictions from our climate scions.
And
what is their ‘purpose’? I’m going ot have to say the science isn’t settled (natch)
on that.
Is
there a ‘one world’ government conspiracy going on that the nefarious powers
that be know the best way to buckle the will of the people is to muck with
their quality of life by making a cheap power source expensive, with a sprinkling
of wealth redistribution on the side?
Or is
Al Gore that smart that he realized the racket here? Maybe, he’s made a ton
while not doing a thing to help the environment, and created an entire industry
on ‘carbon trading’. This whole false economy is now actually a thing
adjudicated, adjusted and enforced by governments to varying degrees, and varying depths into the cores of their taxpayers.
Or is
it the fundamentalists that just hate things that work? Fossil fuels have
fostered the best quality of life in the planet’s history and is helping the
basket cases of the world crawl out of it. As they say, a rising tide lifts all
boats. But some can’t stand that for whatever reason. They’re just negative? Or
they like the government teat as opposed to gumption and innovation. The
cheerleaders of government’s funding ‘alternative’ energy cannot be serious
about helping the earth and her inhabitants. Let’s look at solar power, it’s
about as reliable as Justin Trudeau making it through a paragraph without at
least half of dozen ‘ums’ and ‘ahs’. Or wind power, the hideous structures that
require more steel coking than any oil well, and more grotesquely harvested
rare earth elements than a high school classroom of cellphones, that also has
the benefit of being unreliable, inefficient and murders flying wildlife with
holocaust-like magnitude.
Oops,
did I just invoke one of humanity’s most monstrous moments? Well, they started
it. ‘Climate Change Deniers’ was chosen for a specific reason. To evoke the
same imagery I just did. And its all part of the pattern of the climate change
apparatus – to go Mountain Dew extreme on the rhetoric. But methinks they have
overshot, and the cause is starting to falter due to just that.
We
constantly hear the science is settled, no more questions, this interview is
over – well, it’s not. The very nature of the scientific method can address
this point as ridiculous. Many people are questioning more and more every day.
So waving a magic hockey stick and declaring it ‘settled’ does not work, and in
fact weakens your position.
And
then the claim that should make us ‘normals’ shutter – that 98% of climate
scientists say the science is settled. This has been eviscerated by many people
(none in mainstream media), but recently an interesting article at examiner.com
addressed the issue. But I will point out some of the main highlights. The
Examiner thinks the real number of scientists who believe in global warming is
actually somewhere around 30%, but to me, the most revealing thing is the
sub-groups revealed by the survey. It’s not a black and white issue – there were
a number of respondents that have a truly scientific, nuanced approach to the
issue; that climate change is a combination of the following variables:
man-made, natural, bad, good, threat to humanity, benefit to humanity,
something we can do something about, something we can’t do something about,
something that we can not efficiently do something about or a mixture of all
these.
THE
CONCLUSION TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS IS THE FOLLOWING:
·
The science of man-made climate change is not
even close to being settled, and needs further study
·
The reality is that even if we could blame man
for climate change, is there enough we could do to make a negligible difference
as opposed to spending that money on mitigating the effects of climate change
·
The cost of our actions when weighed against the
outcome do not coincide to a net benefit for the planet or humanity
·
The cost of climate change policy can take
resources away from ‘actual’ proven causes of environmental damage
With that being said, I think its
time people look at climate change in the right terms: if it gets colder, buy a
toque – if it gets warmer, turn your jeans into jean shorts – and most
importantly, do not tax carbon, support safe pipelines, continue to innovate
best practice technologies for environmental management, and keep calm. In
fact, get back to and export those ideals, because Western Canada has been
doing that for decades.
It’s
madness to overturn the economic apple cart for something we don’t understand,
and even if we could agree to an understanding, no cost-benefit analysis has
been done to justify the actions many are trying to inflict on their citizenry.
And
no, the sky is not falling, but don’t take it form – I’m a (gasp), denier!!!!
Sincerely, Chris Grabill - Oilfield Pulse.com / Feb 2016
Comments
Post a Comment