Tuesday, March 05, 2024

"Climate Goals at Risk" But is Earth's Climate at Risk?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Bloomberg and others are shouting that our "climate goals are at risk."

Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.

The "goals" are likely at risk, but is the climate at risk in the ways "climate change" has been presented?

As waves of youth fresh out of the indoctrination of public school classrooms hit the streets around the world demanding we stop "climate change"...or else, the public is growing weary of the "sky is falling" rhetoric.

Be informed, not misled.

Poor Chicken Little--the sky may not be falling as we've assumed.

Bloomberg says, "In the US, former President Donald Trump, who has a long record of climate denial, is the frontrunner to challenge President Joe Biden in November. On the campaign trail, Trump has minimized the effects of climate change, attacked electric vehicles, and pledged to repeal Biden’s signature climate law."

They continue, "Meanwhile, in Europe, polls show right-wing parties that oppose strong climate action are likely to increase their representation after the European Union’s parliamentary elections in June, while the climate-minded Greens are expected to lose seats."

"That raises the prospect of the US and the EU, two of the world’s top three climate polluters, retreating on environmental ambition following the world’s hottest year on record," Bloomberg notes.

Bloomberg writes, "Americans appear to long for Trump administration-era energy policies."

Part of the reason the political winds are shifting is that climate regulations, as they ramp up in stringency, are starting to impinge more on people’s daily lives — at a time when many feel squeezed by inflation and the cost of living,

With respect to our country, Americans care deeply about the environment and want clean air and clean water. Who doesn’t? What turns people off from environmentalism, naturally, is putting nature above people and guilting us for traveling, driving cars, eating red meat, and simply breathing. 

Polling has consistently shown people are extremely turned off by climate and environmental policies requiring increased utility bill payments to combat climate change. 

The backlash

In 2019, an AP-NORC poll found most respondents are unwilling to pay more than $10 a month to fight a so-called climate crisis. 

A recent poll from CRC Research surprisingly found a majority of those aged 18-to-34 - an oft-discussed Biden constituency - don’t want to pay more to “fight” climate change either. 

Overall, there is little support for some policies suggested to reduce meat consumption in order to help the environment. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose increasing taxes on the sale of meat. While most Republicans disagree with requiring public schools to serve vegetarian meals once a week or banning public advertising for meat on government property, Democrats tend to be more conflicted on these issues.  

What about the disappearing glaciers?

We’re told glaciers are melting at a rapid pace because we’re not decarbonizing fast enough to meet Paris Climate Accord goals. Yet, if glacial ice is in short supply and melting at alarming rates, why are people exporting Arctic glacial ice to Dubai? They interviewed a glaciology professor who, ironically, is perfectly fine with this.

Others, however, have no problem with the concept of commercializing Greenland’s ice.

“There will be a lot of people moaning,” said Jason Box, a glaciology professor at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, “but in my view, the love of the ice, the aesthetic of the shape and story of the ice, far outweigh environmental concern.”

He told CNN that its fractal geometry will make it look like a tiny iceberg in a glass.

“It’s like fine art. It gets people talking. And, of course, they will feel a little sorrow for being part of the global warming problem.”

Has climate change been over-sensationalized?

Pew Research suggests it has been.

Last summer, the Pew Research Center did the unthinkable: it didn’t dismiss climate skepticism. The report analyzed how a sizable chunk of America isn’t buying what climate alarmists are selling. It observed many Americans find the climate crisis narrative is overblown for two reasons: the climate changes naturally - even when buoyed by population growth and increased reliance on fossil fuel production and consumption - and extreme weather events are not as frequently occurring as sensationalized by the media. 

The Wall Street Journal noted the latter is especially true, with there being a 96% reduction in climate-related deaths from natural disasters since the 1920s. 

Townhall reports this:

Speaking of the Paris Climate Accord goals, returning to a pre-industrial climate would be miserable. Ryan Maue, a research meteorologist and former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) during the Trump administration, noted, “Climate scientists and global policymakers point to the optimal period in Earth's climate history of 1850-1900, called the pre-industrial climate -- from when the 1.5°C is calculated. Except, it was hell and deadly for humanity.  We don't want to go back to that.” He’s right. 

Despite the facts, climate catastrophizing permeates today. Yet, it’s not a new phenomenon. 

As philosopher Alex Epstein aptly notes in his Energy Talking Points Substack, climate catastrophizing traces back decades. 

Paul Ehrlich, a climate alarmist who supports population control, wrote in his 1986 book The Machinery of Nature: “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”

Did his prediction come true? Of course not. The opposite, however, is true, observes Epstein, “The strong correlation between increasing fossil fuel use and increasing life expectancy is not coincidental--it is causal. Billions of people have brought themselves out of poverty by using uniquely cost-effective fossil fuels to power factories, farms, vehicles, and appliances.” 

We’re also told that our mere existence and continued dependence on fossil fuels is imperiling polar bears. Yet, polar bears have made a miraculous comeback and even have gotten so plentiful to warrant hunting as a sustainable management tool. 


More recently, Greta Thunberg incorrectly predicted— then deleted– a tweet suggesting continued fossil fuel usage would wipe out humanity by June 2023.

Al Gore is infamous for predicting catastrophic climate events---none of which have come to pass.  

Stewardship of God's Creation is biblical---we have been given that responsibility by our Creator. 

The loudest "climate" voices are those who insist we bow down and worship Mother Earth rather than God the Father.

Americans respond well to conservationist environmentalism – a wise use of natural resources that welcomes positive human input while reasonably balancing development with stewardship. 

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.