A very respected friend on the Left Coast says he has done all the math, scrutinized all the statistics and has concluded that by the year 2030, the planet will be fully and disastrously engulfed in the effects of climate change. And that is why governments around the world must act now to neutralize the possibility of such a future.
It’s not the first time he has proffered his 2030 theory — nor, I suspect, will it be his last. Reminds me of Al Gore’s warning years ago that the polar ice cap would be completely melted by 2013. How’d THAT work out for him?
My friend’s belief makes me almost wish that I could be alive 15 years from now to see if he comes any closer than Al Gore did to an accurate prediction. I said “almost” because (1) I do not have any realistic expectation that I will still be breathing in and breathing out when 2030 rolls around, and (2) I don’t put any stock in what the climate alarmists are preaching.
People keep pointing to Hurricane Sandy — the so-called “super storm” of 2012 — as one example to prove what can happen because of climate change. Really? What about the unnamed and devastating hurricane of 1916? And Camille in 1969? Were those two head-crackers — among others — caused by burning coal? Or by too much carbon dioxide in the air? Or because those years were a smidgen of a degree warmer than other years?
Horse hockey! It seems the more that centrist governments screw with Mother Nature, the tighter she tugs on her chastity belt.
Global warming and climate change are naturally occurring facts. Time stretching over centuries — not analytical measurements since weather records started being maintained in the 1850s — are proof of that. Many of us as youngsters learned that if you don’t like the weather, stick around — it’ll change. That still holds true today for everyone everywhere.
I’ve got nothing against fighting air pollution. I’m all for it, as long as the strategy doesn’t destroy the economy and the welfare of the people the strategy is aimed at protecting. But issuing executive orders rooted in the politics of cooling the Earth’s atmosphere by a degree or two — well, c’mon! Who are we kidding? When you’re failing on so many other contentious political issues, what do you do? You try to change the focus, divert the public interest and gin up debate on a largely benign non-issue in which there can be no clear winner.
Moreover, the USA cannot change the world’s climate alone, even if a majority of us wanted to. (I hasten to add that the U.N. “climate-change summit” that just took place in Paris reflected the biggest blob of sound-bite quackery I’ve heard in a long time. Wouldn’t surprise me if Barack Obama put his feet up on the Resolute Desk once again, declared martial law and shackled the entire nation before the end of his term, using “climate change” as his reason. I’m pretty sure Saul Alinsky would be more than anxious to help bankroll the effort.)
And now, the supermarket tabloids are screaming for Obama’s head — that he should be impeached immediately. Wonder why it took so long for that to hit the headlines.