I have an opinion on climate change that will be unpopular with those that listen to the constant drone of the mainstream media to the point of making the issue a religion. I’ve said before and I’ll repeat: I’m not in this race to win a popularity contest, but to give my views on issues, and give links to show you how those opinions were formed. Please watch the 12 minute video (below) for a behind the scenes look at the reality of the climate change agenda today. The guest is a statistician/climatologist named Dr. William Briggs. A few bullet points:
- The Pontifical Academies of Science locked out of the encyclical process any scientist who didn’t believe in the existence of global warming.
- Pope says the temperature is increasing, yet hasn’t in the last two decades.
- Models say the temperature should be increasing, there is huge discrepancy.
- It used to be a fundamental principle of science, that when a model did so badly, you knew that the theory which underlay the model, was false. Every scientist used to know this. But now people are scared to come out and say this, this simple scientific fact. And they’re scared to say it because they’re attacked, or locked out, like Shellnhuber has done with the Pontifical Academy.
- In science, there are no absolutes.
- There is no such thing as this false and faulty so-called consensus, that 97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is dangerous. If you go and talk to people in the field, nobody or hardly anybody believes this kind of stuff. There’s only a few dozen people who keep this sort of lock on the political situation, the scientific situation, and you can’t break it.
And I add: when any politician tells you the ‘science is settled‘ on an issue, that politician is either ignorant or lying. Science is a process, and is never settled. I am an engineer, therefore in some aspects a scientist, and learned this early in my education.
The UN is behind much of the global warming hysteria, with its annual UN Climate Change Conferences. Their eventual goal is a global carbon tax. Al Gore, of An Inconvenient Truth shame, er, fame, would be a big beneficiary as he’s positioned Blood and Gore in many carbon credit schemes.
Coal is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity. And from a modern power plant, it’s still one of the cleanest. I worked on the construction of the Campbell III plant in West Olive MI as my first engineering job. I was involved in the construction of the electrostatic precipitators, among other things. These are known to remove most of the dust and smoke resulting from the burning of coal from what goes out the stack.
What’s all this got to do with city government? As mayor, I would investigate whether the city should continue to move to solar, based on review of the life-cycle analysis I hope the city performed initially. And again, like bike trails that remain unused for much of the year, we are in a northern climate so solar performs poorly for much of the year. Is the city’s rush to get into alternative energy much like the city refuse collection problem, i.e, can private industry (Consumers Energy) provide a better, cheaper solution? If so, it begs the question: why is Grand Rapids in the alternative energy business? A simpler solution, if green energy is such a priority, is just to pay Consumers, which can and will provide green energy. Was this alternative even considered by our current mayor and city commission before embarking on this costly alternative?
And is green energy 100% green? Read about the impact of the manufacture of solar cells on the environment, and the environmental impact when their service life is over. Read about the impact wind generation has on rare earth minerals and birds.
Think we’re living under a giant blanket of CO2 created by fossil fuel plants? Here’s an analysis of the atmosphere:
- Nitrogen, oxygen and argon together comprise about 99 percent of the atmosphere.
- The next most abundant gases – water vapor and carbon dioxide (0.038%) – do absorb a portion of the infrared heat radiated by the earth’s surface, thereby preventing it from reaching space.
Please read this next bullet carefully. Who makes the clouds? Is there any plausible way they could ever convince the public on a “cloud tax”?
- Not included is water vapor, the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.
To answer the question, no, a cloud tax would never fly. So what the rich and powerful who control the world have done is to put most of the “blame” on the only man-made contributor to the “problem” they could, and now want to create a new tax. A world carbon tax.
A politician would never put such an argument before you. A much safer route would be to join the chorus of hysteria. As I’ve said quite a few times, I’m not a politician, I want to be a public servant, and influence our city of Grand Rapids in a more positive and logical way than any of the other candidates will.