|
I've lived long enough to hear decades of apocalyptic predictions
caused at first by pending "Global Cooling". The theory being air pollution
was going to block the sun's rays cooling the planet to catastrophic levels.
Sounded plausible to me. I recall seeing a graphic of the earth down as far as
the 45th parallel covered in ice. As just one consequence, imagine being unable
to grow food in all of Canada and down to the Dakotas in the U.S., all of Switzerland
and most of France in Europe, and northern China and half of Mongolia in the east.
Worldwide famine was certainly in our near future. According to the Time magazine cover, unless you're a Neanderthal, Flat-Earther, Global Cooling Denier, you'd better stock up on thermal underwear and goose down jackets. Although a bit skeptical concerning their apocalyptic forecasts, I kept an open mind and maintained a wait-and-see attitude. Five decades later, I'm still waiting for glaciers to invade our northern border. |
|
Then in the 80s, some other scientists came along and declared the earth had actually warmed up a degree or two over the last hundred years. (So much for "consensus" among climate change scientists.) Sun-blocking pollution and Global Cooling were shrugged off quicker than an ice cube dropped down your back and "Global Warming" became the new mantra. (When cracks in that theory started to surface, the concern became "Climate Change" -- clever.) I won't list the catastrophe that was to occur because of warming during the 80s and then by Y2K, but it was substantial. What I will affirm is that none of it, caused by catastrophic cooling nor warming, came to pass. I also observed that as these predictions along the way failed to materialize, the same warnings were simply recycled and doomsday rescheduled. Fool me once, shame on you ...
My questioning climate alarmism started in the late 70's and continued into the 80s which was before influences like Rush Limbaugh (syndicated in 1988) and FOX News (not launched until 1996) were even around. Yes, people are capable of independent thought. My skepticism came from simple observation by comparing prophecy versus reality. Speaking of which, check out these Climate Change Prophecies by Roman Balmakov of Epoch Times
- First, it was the flip-flop from earth's cooling to warming. It's one thing
to modify one's position -- but to pull a complete 180? Make up my mind, already.
- Second, I noticed their predictions always came with cataclysmic consequences.
They sounded like Chicken Little screaming: "The sky is falling!" -- but the
sky didn't and hasn't.
- Third, there is not only the demand to reduce carbon emissions, but the insistence for "really full economic ... [and] wartime mobilization around climate change" (AOC ). Translation? The demand is for more and more of your money to implement green energy policies -- or we're all going to die! Sounds more like a political shakedown to me.
Of course, the climate is changing. It's been changing since its creation -- periods of warming and cooling, oceans rising and falling, long before we got here. They're still finding ocean fossils in Arizona. Yep, it was under water. Core samples around the globe have shown that areas that were once lush are now desert, and vice-versa. What we are seeing today is a line being drawn, declaring some baseline and any deviation from the baseline spells future catastrophe. Fighting natural cooling and warming could find us at odds with Mother Nature, which is usually not a good idea.
Don't get me wrong. Just because I don't buy into climate alarmism does not mean we should not be environmentally conscious and good stewards of our planet. We should. However, people can only Cry Wolf for so long before others start asking: Where's the beef? Consider this. The soothsayers, who make exaggerated claims of pending global disasater that repeatedly fail to materialize, wind up undermining the cause of responsible enviromentalism.
TOP
