If you say you’re not sure the leading cause of climate change is fossil fuels, the liberal leaners will say you are in denial. I call bullpucky. Here’s why doubt is warranted.
In the 1970s the EPA began requiring catalytic converters on most automobiles used in the US to prevent smog. (A catalytic converter converts carbon monoxide (CO) to carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX); both are considered to be climate changing gases.) After years of studies, EPA determined that this requirement made our transportation sector the leading US contributor to global warming emissions, not coal-fired power plants.
So why the war on fossil fuels? And why hasn’t the USEPA and the California EPA eliminated this 1970s catalytic converter requirement? Is California’s smog more of a threat to the globe than climate change?
Now consider climate models. They may enjoy consensus, but they are not science. Physical science is prediction and independent replication. Climate modeling simply put only helps you visualize how changing specific input variables might change outcomes. I say might because choosing the correct variables is based on assumptions and assuming can make an ass of u and me. Somewhere I read, when it comes to climate “consensus”, just remember that the same people with the same agenda and with the same confidence and zeal are choosing the input variables. What if these climate change experts have degrees in journalism?
To my knowledge, the true science community still hasn’t quantified how much volcanic eruptions, arctic tundra, wetlands and swamps, beetle killed trees and forest fires, and undeveloped countries, to name a few, contribute to climate change.
Before you commit yourself to the mandates of the Gloom and Doom crowd, think about these disparities. If in doubt, only invest in waterfront property that floats, hurricane and tornado resistant construction, high efficiency air conditioning and a severe weather wardrobe. Hoping for the best is not a plan.
Larry Krizan, Wise River