One recent FCJ commentary detailed how panic stricken Democrats have become in their desperation to take down President Trump. The current employment and business boom has made the U.S. economy the envy of the world. Democrat leaders are now past panic stage and have entered a phase of full blown hysteria.
But wait: there are some topics to exploit that may help the Democratic Socialists succeed, and one that looms large is “Global Warming/Climate Change.” Here are some quotes from a Washington Post article that will turn heads.
•The Arctic Ocean is warming. Ice bergs are scarce. The water is too hot for seals.
•Unheard of warm temps are reported, with almost no ice below 81 degrees N.
•The Gulf Stream is abnormally warm down to 3100 meters. Many glaciers have disappeared.
•Few seals are seen in the eastern Artic. Whitefish are non-existent, replaced by herring and smelt schools never before observed so far north.
•If the warming trend continues, many coastal cities worldwide will be uninhabitable.
Now, before you decide to vote for Democrats because, well, nothing is more important that saving Planet Earth and no- one- but- Democrats- will- do -it, please note the article was published in 1922.
That’s right. November 2, 1922.
I’m not one to insult the readers’ intelligence by listing a pile of references to back up my assertions; we all know that anybody can find a source that backs up even the most ridiculous claim. Here are some facts to consider, research them on your own.
•150 million years ago, [somewhat prior to coal fired power plants and SUVs] CO2 concentrations were five times higher than they are now, temperatures were very warm, and life on Earth was at its most prolific.
•During the warm period 250-400 AD, most of the grain that fed the Roman Empire was grown on land in North Africa that is now desert.
•From the 10th to 13th centuries, grapes were commonly grown in the far north regions of the British Isles, and thriving agricultural communities existed on Iceland and Greenland.
•Shortly thereafter, global temps plummeted, and the Thames River froze solid every year. Crops failed, tens of thousands of people died of famine and exposure.
To those who say 97% of scientists believe in man caused climate change, that is a huge lie. One hundred percent of scientists who want to stay on the government gravy train of grant money will say they believe in it, but many thousands of reputable scientists believe man has small effect on climate. Few of them make public statements because they wish to avoid the abuse that inevitably results…. Like I will get for submitting this commentary!
How will Green New Deal policies, if implemented, affect us here in Minnesota? A special report by Isaac Orr in the spring edition of Thinking Minnesota gives us an accurate snapshot. Not a pretty picture, folks. Governor Walz and Democrats are proposing a 50% renewable mandate by 2030, and 100% by 2050. How much would it cost? A study released by the American Experiment points out the cost per household to implement the 50% mandate would run about $1,200 per year. The 100% is over twice as expensive.
Why so much? One reason is consumers and businesses would be paying for two power systems: a system of solar and wind, plus a fossil fuel backup system for the times when it is too cold or cloudy or snowy or windy [or calm] for the Green system to function. Some fuel costs would be saved when conventional plants are not on line, but many costs are fixed, like manpower, maintenance, etc.
The effect on schools? A large district like Edina would have to lay off 10 teachers to pay additional utility costs. Businesses would be likewise affected.
Would it help save the planet? Nope. The most optimistic climate model indicates a global effect of 0.0006 degrees; too small to measure. All costly pain, no gain. Please read the Issac Orr article, and don’t buy into “Global Warming Science Fiction”!
God Bless until next time, Jeff
Kim Stelson says
In “Climate science or climate science fiction?” (FCJ, Monday, May 27, 2019), Jeff Erding recycles debunked anti-climate change disinformation. In his article, he states “Here are some facts to consider, research them on your own.” I have, and this is what I found: Every single one of the facts Erding states is blatantly false or misleading. The article from the Washington Post of November 2, 1922 is real, but the article has little to do with climate change. As snopes.com, a leading internet myth-busting site states, “As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.” For readers who are unfamiliar with Snopes, it has been independently verified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which lists its core principles as: “non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources, transparency of funding and organization, transparency of methodology, and open and honest corrections policy.” The Washington Post article example is just one of Erding making misleading claims. I don’t know whether Erding is duping us, or has been duped himself, but in any event his claims should be treated with extreme skepticism.
Thomas E.H. says
@ Jeff
//•150 million years ago, [somewhat prior to coal fired power plants and SUVs] CO2 concentrations were five times higher than they are now, temperatures were very warm, and life on Earth was at its most prolific. //
What species around today were around 150 million years ago? Please indulge my curious mind.
Aaron Bishop says
Question for Jeff Erding. Could you please provide a link to the original Washington Post article?
Cheers.
Herbert Panko says
Mr. Erding, your stupidity and arrogance regarding global warming would be laughable if not so pitifully sad. First of all, these 97% are not just scientists, but reputable climatologists of the highest order. So do you expect us to believe some “local pretend scientist” over the vast majority of climatologists the world over? Let me put this another way. Suppose your local doctor, a non-specialist, reassured you that you did not have cancer. But you decided to be examined by, not one, but nine different oncologists, cancer specialists. They all agree you have cancer but can be cured if you get help immediately. So what would you do? Dismiss the specialists and go with your family doctor? Only a fool would do that, but that is essentially what you are doing.
Jeffrey Erding says
@ Herb and Greg, thanks for your comments, fellows. Unless my commentaries goad you into a fit of anger, insults, and name calling, I am not sure I am on the right track. Since you both exhibit those responses, it assures me my efforts are pretty much spot on.
Thank you!
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Jeff,
Perhaps you missed my previous question: Could you please provide a link to the original Washington Post article?
Cheers.
Greg Rendahl says
Mr. Erding seems to think that most scientists are either greedy liars or timid mice. It’s incredibly sad when thousands of good people are held in such contempt. It’s an evil thing to say. Your lack of concern for our future has a devilish focus. Shame on you.
Kim Wentworth says
First off, very nice post Jeff Erring, in my humble opinion.
Rendahl, along with your current post as well as past, I find funny and silly. So scientists, whom have a vested interest ( tied to the worst outfit in the world, the U.N.) are clamoring for us to change our ways. First we going to freeze, then we going to burn. How soon are we headed back to the deep freeze? For the last time, you can’t base any findings on something that has been here on earth the shortest, humans. Maybe you should go to N.Y. and buddy up with the wacko AOC. “Green” only means one thing, the one goal behind global warming: transfer, robbing of wealth in this country and the world. Same foal of the UN. The shame is on you.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
How are climate scientists tied to the U.N.? I believe I already spoke about the “freeze-burn-freeze” claim in the last article I wrote on the subject. You and I had a discourse about it, I believe. Also, we can base findings about climate change because humans do not host the information of past climate events. Our ice, paleontological chemistry, and geology does.
Cheers.
Kim Wentworth says
Greetings Aaron:
I think where you and I differ is the “significance” of humans to start with honestly. I have done a lot of reading on the subject, pro and con. I am not college educated, just high school diploma. Over many decades I have become strongly opposed to EVERYTHING tied to the UN.
Can we have a positive or negative impact on this planet, absolutely. My problem is the position of some to over play the negative impact. Think of the many things invented that were supposed to be good like plastics. Look what that is doing to our oceans! Do you think a oil spill is in ANY way on the same level as “human produced product”. In 1983/1984 I did my term paper on water pollution. It really opened my eyes to things going on then even. Ever wonder how one of the most arid states has the most golf courses, Arizona. California aqua duct system is another example. This is a little off of climate change but just to show you that we are not much different. Ever hear of an oil spill having a lasting negative impact? “Lasting” meaning in earth time, not human time. Oil is from the Earth.
Today, climate change is being used as a political tool, transfer of wealth tool. The U. S. leads the world in conservation. Most things “Green” are good intentions from misguided, less than noble organizations.
Aaron Bishop says
Thank you for the reply. Although I do not touch on the UN in my upcoming article (already sent in for next weekend’s publication), I do address several errors/misinformation in Jeff Erding’s above article.
There are certainly groups of people who will do what is in their power to capitalize on any grave issue (guns, prescription drugs, pollution, etc.). I don’t think we disagree with that. We may, however, disagree on whether the grave issue is real or perceived. Is the U.N. a cause of concern for folks. Certainly. Can a group of people hijack a calamity for their own purposes? There’s no better time. It isn’t particularly high on my personal priority list because of the checks and balances within the scientific community when it comes to raw research and data. When numbers are fudged, it’s the scientific community and the process of the scientific method that challenges those numbers (like what happened in 2018 with water temperature values) and those responsible will find themselves unable to ever work in such research areas again.
I am quite aware of the water predicaments in the drier areas of the United States (and the Arabian peninsula, Syria, northern Africa, and South Africa) and often check on updates on the aquifer status. Generally quite grim. It provides insights as to the political-economic moves such nations like Saudi Arabia is making when it comes to desalination plants. Their dependency on oil as a source of income will wane, and so they will require infrastructure for their basic food and water needs.
Oil is from the Earth. Absolutely correct. As is Uranium. It’s what humans do with these materials that matters. Ecosystems can be changed drastically if we are not careful. They already have been changed permanently. As Jeff Erding’s article stated. The Sahara was once tropical. Although humans have not been the sole cause of desertification, we are major current players in exacerbating the negative affects on the region.
The climate is indeed a political tool. A powerful one. I’m not sure I see the connection with the transfer of wealth as you see it (I consider every transaction a transfer of wealth, be it for oil companies, tobacco, pharmaceutical, or pizza. There is always a transfer of wealth or there would be no economy. There are always the new money groups searching for ways to take the wealth from the old money groups or the masses (because that’s where the money is). But let us keep in mind that, although the U.N. may indeed be involved in questionable activity, the greater number of people included in conspiracy, the less likely it’s totally fabricated.
The U.S. may indeed have been a leader in conservation practices, but I would not be surprised if the title for most conservation-oriented nation would be a nation whose economy relies tremendously on eco-tourism. Perhaps a study of which nations are the most ecologically conservative has been done, but I am not currently aware of such.
You will find (if you choose to read my upcoming article) that I focus on the U.S. military as our government’s strongest advocate for climate change research, mitigation, and recovery. The intelligence the U.S. military uses is derived from the research they themselves conduct on their own experiences with military installations as well as the garnered scientific information from research done globally.
Let’s just say you are correct in that there is indeed a power/money grab as a result of this climate change “hysteria”. People are getting wealthy because of it. But does that mean the underlying climate threat is not real? Power can shift through real global crises. It need not be an invented one. In fact, it’s far more likely to be successful if the crisis is real.
My final thought experiment would be to imagine what climate change by way of global warming would look like to you if it were happening, and if it were caused by the truly tumultuous rate of CO2 emissions humans are measurably bringing to the carbon cycle and atmosphere.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas E.H. says
@Kim
//humble opinion//
Hilarious. When you call people “libtards” in one frame and claim to have a humble opinion in another, you look like you don’t know what “humble” means.
//Maybe you should go to N.Y. and buddy up with the wacko AOC. “Green” only means one thing, the one goal behind global warming: //
Let’s just assume this is absolutely true for a moment. So, we try to clean up our air, water, and earth and climate change isn’t even real?!? Wow, what a waste of time, right?
John says
This is an irresponsible article to publish while parts of Missouri and Oklahoma are under water. I’ll take the word of essentially all the major science organizations before I’d take the author’s word. Also. We did not have satellites in 1922. However, Exxon did have a memo that they kept secret about climate change from the 1980’s.
Anonymous says
This is sooooo good.
Also the Bible. Says God is in control and that heaven and earth shall remain thru it all
Penny says
The verse that goes along with what I was referring to. Is Genisis 8;22.
WHICH says,
While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest,Cold and heat, Winter and summer,and day and night Shall not cease.
I believe what my God wrote and I agree with Mr Erding.
YOU can deny God, hate him ignore Him, not believe in him, curse him,
BUT ONE DAY YOU WILL BOW DOWN BEFORE HIM.
Thomas E.H. says
@Anonymous
God has a history of finding unique ways to eliminate entire civilisations.
Thomas E.H. says
@Anonymous
//Also the Bible. Says God is in control and that heaven and earth shall remain thru it all//
God has a history of finding unique ways to eliminate entire civilisations.