Trump is Right: We Could all Use a Little Global Warming Right About Now
“In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record,” tweeted President Donald Trump on Thursday. “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!” (Source: “Twitter post,” Donald J. Trump Twitter account, December 28, 2017, 4:01 p.m.).
Rather than the tax cut, which many have praised as Trump’s most significant achievement in his first year in office, I submit that scrapping the Paris climate accord should have that honor.
The tax cuts are dangerous and benefit the already rich. Pulling out of the Paris climate accord helps to expose the hypocrisy of the climate change circus. Global warming is not a national threat to the United States, nor is it a threat to the world, at least in the sense that there’s little that humans can do or achieve by their climate policies focused on reducing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not a poison and it accounts for a fraction of a percentage point in the atmosphere–about 0.4%.
So-called green energy sources may have their advantages. Coal remains dirty; it produces toxic gases and particulates that no living being should inhale in their lungs. However, the climate alarmists à la Al Gore have removed logic and fact from the debate. In fact, they have removed the possibility of debate altogether, and that it is one of the most important components of any scientific process. By doing so, they have focused the majority of the world’s environmentalist attention on the innocuous carbon dioxide, which is one of the very ingredients necessary to sustain life on Earth.
“Green” Energy Does Have a Future, But Not Because of Climate Change
Solar, wind, and tidal energy sources are all useful where they can function practically. For instance, using the vast empty spaces of the Saudi Arabian deserts to generate solar power makes complete sense. Exploiting the wind from the countries bordering the North Atlantic also makes sense. Developing safer and more reliable nuclear reactors might make the most sense.
But not because they produce less carbon dioxide. Rather, energy production should be developed in accordance to its efficacy and its ability to produce as little “real” pollution as possible. The focus should be on carbon monoxide or nitrous oxide.
Moreover, the case that the Earth is actually heading toward a long period of cooling, rather than warming, is sadly gaining ground. Anyone who has experienced the past few days in the northern half of the United States and many parts of Canada can attest to the fact that bitter cold is a far better descriptor of Hell than slightly higher temperature; after all, even the most alarmist of alarmists want us to be concerned about a warning in the magnitude of some 39 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2017, no fewer than 120 scientific studies researching the effects of low sunspot activity pointed to the coming of a mini ice age, a period that went from the late 17th to the early 19th century. (Source: “Temperatures To Decrease 0.5°C-0.7°C Due To Low Sunspots, Solar Minimum,” NoTricksZone, December 28, 2017.)
Does Low Sun Spot Activity Mean We Going Back to the Mini Ice Age?
It was so cold that the Thames river in London froze on a few occasions in that time. The ice was so thick that Londoners held fairs and parties on the frozen Thames River. (Source: “Frost fair: When an elephant walked on the frozen River Thames,” BBC, January 28, 2014.)
While we’re on the subject of London, note that long before central heating, the Romans visited and founded important colonies there from the warmth and comfort of the Mediterranean. They even planted grapes to make wine, as evidenced by the existence of a Vine Street. In other words, it must have been warmer in Roman times than it is today. The world is still recovering from the mini ice age. But the low sunspot activity that astronomers noted then, which few dispute to explain the drop in average temperature, appears to have returned.
I don’t often agree with President Donald Trump, but I fully concur with the sentiment of his statement above. I suspect that many politically left-leaning Americans also agree (most likely in secret and in the privacy of their homes). Now, it’s essential to distinguish man-made from natural climate change. Nobody can deny that the climate changes; it always has, as the lingering evidence of a glacial age in a not-so-distant past (in relative terms) remains in North America. That explains why geologists have been some of the most prominent critics of the man-made climate change/global warming theories. They observe and study the Earth’s formations and regularly come across changes–some of them extreme–that climate has caused throughout the millions of years that the Earth has existed.
Al Gore Preaches Climate Catastrophism, But Actual Scientists Are Skeptical
But it’s not just geologists that are skeptical. Indeed, there are many serious physicists who have offered more than mere sarcasm to demonstrate that the man-made climate change theory–and it remains a theory, not a law, which is the first thing most people ignore–presents considerable flaws and fallacies.
A short list of these physicists and climatologists includes Denis Rancourt, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Sallie Baliunas, Timothy Ball, Ian Clark, Vincent Courtillot, Don Easterbrook, Ian Plimer, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and many others. Even two Physics Nobel Prize winners, Antonino Zichichi and Carlo Rubbia, dispute the man-made climate change theory. So Trump (for once) finds himself in strong academic company; ironically, many of these scientists would probably never vote for him. (Source: “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warminga,” Wikipedia, last accessed December 29, 2017.)
If you still think that the climate alarmists may be right, remember this: former vice president and climate prophet of doom Al Gore has long promised a meteorologically induced “rapture” for those who follow his climate change or global warming cult. He said that by 2014–that’s almost four years ago–the polar ice cap would vanish. He has also claimed the Statue of Liberty would be immersed in the water of the New York Harbor. (Source: “Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions,” The Daily Caller, March 4, 2014.)
Note also that if you’re going skiing this year in North America, you’re also challenging one of Gore’s predictions. He suggested that skiing would become extinct. Not satisfied, others upped the ante, predicting that all winter sports would become extinct. (Source: “The End of Snow,” The New York Times, February 7, 2014.)
As the New Year approaches, global warming, Trump, and climate change should be the last of your worries. The first might be where to get a warm parka and boots to step outside. The second major worry will probably revolve around the dollar amount on your January heating bill.