Global warming a.k.a., climate change will now be proclaimed “climate disruption?!” with extreme prejudice from a global warming zealot and White House Science advisor John Holdren .
Apparently there are more than a few scientists who strongly disagree with Holdren as published in a NCA rebuttal – Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment – 2014.
I can acknowledge there are two sides to the issue of CO2 emissions but in any case I cannot defend the tremendous government waste of taxpayer money, the billions in taxpayer dollars wasted on greentech failures. Nor the political rhetoric, the ignorance or the hateful talk and actions from either side.
Take CO2 emissions out of the equation we should be proud we, as a society, have done a tremendous job reducing pollution and carbon emissions. On the flip side, we all know we can do a better job to reduce emissions and pollution.
On the one hand, you’re not going to want to suck on the tailpipe of a full-sized SUV, so you know carbon emissions contribute to pollution,6 of whom are cities in CA, like the smog in L.A. and other cities, but so does their location. Certainly, I would rather run 5 miles in the Tampa Bay area vs. South L.A. where your lungs will burn. So reducing carbon emissions is necessary in highly populated areas.
Cooler heads will not prevail without greater awareness, more education and a willingness to listen to both sides of the debate, all which is sorely needed. It is difficult to have that debate on climate change when the POTUS says the debate on climate change is over, the Senate majority, the mainstream media and Hollywood go to great lengths to castrate anyone who they perceive to be a climate change denier.
The poorest 30% of the US population spend 17% of their after tax income on gasoline while politicians and climate change proponents continue to point to perceived success stories of wind farms and solar, that fly in the face of sound economic reason. The EPA and their regulations are systematically and progressively hurting the people and the economy which depend on fossil fuels and related jobs. Case in point, the Keystone Pipeline and the War on Coal . Working middle class Americans depend on cheap energy to commute to work and heat their homes during the winter months.
You can look to polar opposites on climate change for highly controversial opinions from both Dr. Tim Ball in his book, A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax and to Greenpeace activist Paul Gilding in his book The Great Disruption, which is a rambling read that addresses his theories on global warming and overpopulation. The idea that the “earth is full” is and will be largely debunked. Think Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper. Calmer heads may prevail if you were to read and follow Bjorn Lomberg, in his book Cool It and his blog lomborg.com.
Lomborg, who’s position on climate change is not without controversy from the left, takes a more middle of the road, practical approach to reducing carbon emissions and pollution through innovation like driverless cars or this 19-Year-Old Develops Ocean Cleanup Array That Could Remove 7,250,000 Tons Of Plastic From the World’s Oceans.
Lomborg has more recently defended his position, which is to say radical climate change policies hurt the poor, in his book How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World serves as more of a source or reference on pollution and the economic impact on civilization over time.
There are many things everyday people can do to reduce pollution and carbon emissions although I personally prefer long lasting LED lighting over compact fluorescents. It’s really too bad most people will simply form an opinion based on their politics, inundated by sensational news stories from the mainstream “if it bleeds it leads” media and Hollywood celebrities who have little to sacrifice when it comes to policies that affect them in their daily lives. It does affect the rest of us. I recommend looking at all sides of the climate change debate. Let cooler heads prevail.
NOTE: Many global warming advocates say there are no credible scientists who debate the existence of global warming. Here is the list from the NCA Rebuttal referenced earlier in this blog:
Joseph S. D’Aleo Certified Consultant Meteorologist, American Meteorological Society FellowM.S., Meteorology, University of WisconsinB.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of WisconsinDr. Harold H. DoironRetired VP, Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace ConsultantB.S. Physics, University of Louisiana – LafayetteM.S., PhD. Mechanical Engineering, University of HoustonDr. Don J. Easterbrook Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington UniversityPh.D., Geology, University of Washington, SeattleM.S., Geology, University of Washington, SeattleB.S., Geology, University of Washington, SeattleDr. Theodore R. EckPh.D., Economics, Mich. State U.; M.A, Economics, U. of MichiganFulbright Professor of International EconomicsFormer Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence GroupDr. Neil FrankB.S., Chemistry, Southwestern CollegeM.S., Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida StateFormer Director of the National Hurricane CenterDr. Gordon J. FulksPh.D., Physics, University of ChicagoM.S., Physics, University of ChicagoB.S., Physics, University of ChicagoDr. William M. GrayEmeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State UniversityPh.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of ChicagoM.S., Meteorology, University of ChicagoB.S., Geography, George Washington University Art HornB.Sc. Meteorology Lyndon State CollegeTeaches Meteorology/Climatology at Tunxis Community CollegeTV Meteorologist 25 years, lecturer, expert witness, radio broadcaster
Some interesting ideas for innovation to reduce pollution: