By Jerry Egge
This is a response to Michael Soares’ June 10 “I’m Just Sayin'” column about climate change. I think he only presented one side of the story.
I was one of the fortunate few who survived the new ice age with which we were threatened with in the 1970s. It was going to be disastrous. Ecology Professor Kenneth Watt at the University of California stated flatly: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Dr. Watt’s long johns and parkas were quietly put in storage, as were mine. The “experts” were wrong.
Every carbon atom in coal, peat, oil, and gas was once part of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. Through the eons-long processes of photosynthesis, plant uptake, plant decay, time and pressure, the carbon became part of fossil fuels. By burning these fuels, aren’t we merely restoring the original atmosphere composition? To suggest life is jeopardized at higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere is contradicted by how vigorous life must have been long ago as evidenced by vast fields of fossil fuels. For eons, plants voraciously trapped CO2, slowly reducing CO2 levels in the air to a little below where they are today.
Mankind should use renewable energy sources when possible but not at the risk of lowering living standards. The U. S. has led the world in energy efficiency with mileage increases for cars and trucks, energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, smokestack scrubbers, highly-insulated buildings and many other measures. But the U. S. cannot carry the entire burden. Many countries want to modernize with electrical sources. China alone brings a new coal-fired power plant on-line every seven to ten days and will continue to do so into the future as far as the eye can see. But renewables have their limits. To produce new electricity for the world’s increasing demand would require a new solar array the size of South Carolina every year. After awhile, you would run out of South Carolinas.
Maybe the “experts” will get it right this time. Here is a newspaper article pointing out some of the concerns:
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Sounding to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
“Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.”
Please note this report was filed nearly a hundred years ago, in 1922.
If climate change modifications are enacted, our “betters” in Washington would live lives unchanged. They will be driven around town in black SUVs, escorted by trains of more black SUVs. Nancy Pelosi will continue to demand she be flown back and forth to California in nothing less than a big Boeing 757, because if forced to fly in a smaller jet, it would require a time-consuming fuel stop.
Contrary to the “97%” figure so often cited, there are many prominent scientists who — while they agree the climate may be changing — are skeptical about anthropogenics. Nobel Physics Prize Winner Ivan Giaever says, “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak frankly…As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Dr. Philip Lloyd wrote, “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears] without having their professional careers ruined.” In 2017, 485 scientific papers were published by this group of scientists. Did you see any mention of any of them in the media? Me neither.
Why not? Because climate change has become politicized. The potential money that politicians sense in a cap-and-trade carbon tax boggles their minds. “The Rich” have been pretty well tapped out, and they are running out of other people’s money. Everything that they can tax is already taxed, except soda pop. Wait! What? Oh. Never mind.
How is this for politicization? The Paris agreement declared climate action must include “gender equality, empowerment of women, and inter-generational equity.” Huh?
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – RI) urges the Department of Justice to file a racketeering suit against “conservation policy” groups and the energy industry for promoting “wrongful thinking” on climate change. He convinced U. S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to refer it to the FBI to see is she could take action. Thought control by the left. I’m shocked!
New York is suing the five largest petroleum companies for billions of dollars, saying the companies are responsible for present and future climate change damages, all the while continuing to enjoy warm houses, fast travel, and cheap food the petroleum industry makes possible. Do they really want coal and oil companies to stop supplying energy, or is this the money-grab I think it is?
As the New American reported earlier this year, the desperation and denial among “warmists” was illustrated perfectly in December. A ship full of global-warming alarmists led by a “climate scientist” went on a mission to study how “global warming” was melting Antarctic ice. Instead of completing their mission, they ended up getting their vessel trapped in record-setting levels of sea ice, and had to be rescued.
The news isn’t all bad. In spite of “the polar ice is disappearing” mantra you hear daily, NASA says, “In contrast, in the Antarctic the sea ice coverage has been increasing although at a lesser rate than the decreases in the Arctic.” The rate of sea level rise from 1920 to 1950 was as large, if not larger, than it currently is. 40% of the warming in the 20th century occurred before 1950 when CO2 was not a factor in warming.
The earth has been amazingly resilient as the climate has fluctuated from ice ages to hot seasons. Mankind can survive steaming jungles to igloos. We’ll evolve and adapt. I’ll still shut off lights when I leave a room and launder my socks in cold water. If oceans rise a few inches and the streets of New York become the new Venice, I’m happy to be living in Cuenca at 8,200 feet.