Boots & Badges
Letterwerks Sign City
"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Sunday, December 11th, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞

Climate Change

By Col. Stan Gudmundson

Mon, Apr 30th, 2012
Posted in All Commentary

In a recent column a writer said, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support the evidence supported by the scientific community as well as changes advocated by Al Gore.” Really?

On March 28, 2012, the IPCC released a statement that said the following: “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized [property] losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” Did you notice that statement “high agreement”? How big a deal is this admission by the IPCC?

Although it appears to be somewhat narrow, this admission is huge. In terms of impact it is akin to the Pope declaring that the Sunday after next, Catholics will all become Lutherans. Well, maybe not that big, but still.

An earlier Journal writer also contended that 97 percent of American science professionals find manmade influence on climate change to be indisputable. The “97 percent” number is used to try to convince us that consensus is real. It is not. Moreover, science is not consensus and consensus is not science.

In 2010, 141 scientists (signed) a letter to the United Nations challenging the junk science of the global warming cult, declaring “climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discover’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is not settled.

In addition, a year later, in response to the East Anglia “Climategate (1.0), over 1,000 scientists expressed concern about the validity of the whole notion of climate change.” Another author says, “The release of new data has delivered one body blow after another to the ‘climate change’ fanatics. Several major planet-wide studies have been released over the past couple of years, showing no significant global warming at all...The East Anglia fraudsters...were trying to “hide the decline” in global temperature data.”

In Climategate 1.0 the “experts” in East Anglia also said they would destroy their climate data rather than releasing it for others to study. That was a real confidence builder and now we have a second release of e-mails. As National Review says, “dubbed Climategate 2.0 (they) show members of the discipline’s inner circle discussing how to fudge calculations to achieve the desired results by, for example, selecting the most favorable time periods for comparison and adding correction factors to smooth over inconvenient results...when some researches expressed uneasiness...they were shouted down or threatened.”

We need to get off the oil treadmill and do things like drive electric cars someone contends. Pure electric cars? Okay, and electric cars get their electrical power from where? 45 percent of the electricity available in the United States comes from coal-powered plants. By the way, methyl-mercury comes from which sorts of smokestacks? So, assuming electric cars are evenly distributed across the county, 45 percent are coal-burning cars. They aren’t electric cars at all.

“Electric” cars are powered by coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, and nuclear energy. A tiny number are wind powered. Given the sources for their electricity, how many miles per gallon do these crummy souped-up golf carts get anyway? I would hope there are good estimates out there but I am not aware of what they are.

Fewer and fewer people believe in the “faith” of manmade environmental change. There is not enough evidence. Moreover, everywhere we turn we find the “experts” are flat out lying or fudging data to make their case. Finally, many in the environmental movement really don’t believe in it themselves or don’t believe its science is important.

Ottmar Edenhofer is a co-chair of an IPCC working group. In the world of environmentalism, he is a big shot. He recently said, “(One) must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy...One has to free oneself from the illusions that international climate policy is (about) environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

As one author put it, “When climate science is no longer about the climate but rather about ways to engineer a massive transfer of wealth from developed is no longer science...(it is) a ruse.” Moreover, since the ‘60s, the efforts we have made to clean up the environment have been nothing short of spectacular. Which leads to some questions about how far have we really come and how far do we have to go? If we have improved the environment by 80 or 90 percent, why haven’t we also correspondingly reduced the size of the EPA and MPCA? If the war on pollution is largely over, why is the environmental army still so big and their budget so large? How big should these agencies be just to maintain the high environmental quality we now have or to continue work to improve the environment without involving themselves in things they shouldn’t be doing?

The EPA now is a monster that has gotten completely out of hand. It needs a RIF (reduction in force).

It’s difficult to have a proper understanding of humanity’s impact on the earth because we are almost always near people or around evidence of human development. Years ago I spent a year on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. Later I had the privilege of flying the SR-71 for five years. I also was a U-2 mission planner, planned anti-drug reconnaissance missions, and had opportunities to review film of the Amazon basin. What strikes me most about those experiences is not the impact of humanity on this planet, but the complete lack of evidence of human presence on the vast majority of our globe. It gives one a little different and better perspective.

Finally, is there any way to have a serious discussion about environmental issues and also include Al Gore’s name in it?

No Comments Yet. Be the first to comment!

Your comment submission is also an acknowledgement that this information may be reprinted in other formats such as the newspaper.

Foods Weekly Ads
Studio A Photography