Sucker born every minute
Dear Editor: We’ve grown skeptical of what politicians, priests, economists, and miracle diets say. Their predictions and promises are usually wrong. They mostly trade in illusions, but business is brisk which shows that there’s still a sucker born every minute.
The science of climate change prompts more questions before acting on some of its conclusions. Scientists are subject to the same frailties as the rest of us. They have pet theories to advance and egos to protect, and influence and money flows to those who can devise the most appealing theories which are tailored to suit the social and political moods of the times.
We’ve heard a lot of conflicting theories from the scientists, but politicians have chosen to go with those that attribute all climate change to human activities while ignoring the effects of natural processes. But there are some basic questions about the relative influence of people and natural forces on climate which remain unresolved
Natural sciences show that the earth’s climate has changed dramatically over the eons and that the most massive changes occurred well before the appearance of humans. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that these same natural processes continue, even after any incremental changes that human activities cause?
Can humans actually control climate? People have tried through time, but have been profoundly unsuccessful. There’ve always been weather gods which people have feared or loved and tried to influence with various offerings, including human sacrifice. Every ancient civilization put their sun god as pre-eminent. Seems they were smarter and more honest than today’s scientists and politicians.
The climate agenda wants to lower global temperatures to what they were in the pre-industrial era. What were the temperatures were in 1845? Where were the thermometers and how reliable were they compared to today?
What caused the glaciers to melt before the first smokestack? Are these same natural warming and cooling cycles still in play? Natural sciences indicate that glaciations will re-occur.
What percentage of climate change is caused by human activities versus natural processes? Is it 10 or 15 per cent, or maybe 100 per cent, like the “warmists” want us to believe? What’s the proven figure?
Finally, can paying carbon taxes to politicians and sending money to Third World potentates actually improve the climate? We’ve seen little scientific evidence for this.
At least we’ve moved beyond tossing virgins into pits to placate the weather gods. Now we just throw money. John Thompson Kaleden