Maybe Man IS To Blame For The Climate

I used to be a "climate denier". By that I mean I believed that climate change was real, but man's impact has been minimal to nonexistent. But that has changed.

Back in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted a temperature of 130 degrees (Fahrenheit, cause, come on, if Celsius we wouldn't be here!) This was reported as the highest temperature since 1913, when it reached 134. What has happened between 1913 and 2020?

We had an industrial revolution that pumped a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

We had reports of Global Cooling in the 1970s - the world was going into a new ice age. I know, you can't believe that - but that was what scientists reported.

We started a campaign to address the pollution. The EPA got its start. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland stopped burning. The catalytic converter became the norm in our cars.

Then around 2000, the Rev. Al Gore (Minister of Mother Earth) started showing a slide show of the dangers of Global Warming.

And in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted the highest temperature since 1913.

So what does this tell us? Man, by his pollution, brought the earth to the brink of an ice age, and by eliminating pollution, brought the earth to the brink of a worldwide Death Valley. 

Maybe man IS the reason for global climate change. 

The thing that scares me is that we have scientists telling us what we need to do to fix it. And each group has a remarkably different method. For instance, some want to "seed" clouds with reflective materials to bounce sunlight away. 

What if scientists are wrong? What if what they tell us swings us deeper into the embrace of Heat Miser - or, back to Snow Miser?  

I for one have little faith in what the scientific experts of 2020 tell us. After all, the experts DID tell us of the coming ice age in the 1970s. 

"But J.P., the scientists of today are much smarter than those in the 1970s. They have more data and know more of how things work."

Can you tell me that the scientists in 50 years aren't going to prove today's scientists wrong too?

Does man have an impact on the climate? I believe so. But can man fix it? I don't know. I'm more afraid that he will cause more damage in the process.

©Emittravel 2021

"Don't Panic!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Every issue facing the world can be directly linked to climate change (crisis) and the timeline seems to keep getting shorter for the end of the world.

"We only have 11 years to cut our emissions in half." - Elizabeth Warren - September 5, 2019 Climate Town Hall

I remember in the 1970s that we were doomed due to the impact of global COOLING. If we didn't change our ways immediately (changes which always seemed connected to redistributing wealth from one group to another) we would be thrust into another ice age!

"There's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent threat of a changing climate." - Barack Obama

It seems that everywhere you turn you hear people crying that the world is about to end and it is our fault. Unless we make drastic changes we are all going to die!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" - Chicken Little

Did you know that the world was going to end by a great flood? That was predicted to take place on February 25, 1524, when the planets would be in alignment.

The world was going to end in 1843. This was predicted by William Miller in 1831. When it didn't happen, he recalculated and determined it to take place in 1844. No dice.

In 1910, Halley's comet was to pass earth in such close proximity that it was believed that it would destroy the planet. "Comet May Kill All Earth Life, Says Scientist."

How about when Harold Camping "accurately" predicted the end times - 12 times. Never happened, but he did sell a lot of books.

And of course, we can't forget when John Cusack and a few daring individuals helped save a large number of people when the Mayan Calendar marked the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Oh wait. That was a movie.

We humorously dismiss the above because they were mostly the rantings of the religious - not the true believers we have today in science. But my question is, should we?

In a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 (Schenck v. United States), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave us the famous quote concerning shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is thought to be one of the first opinions that directly limited the 1st Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause to not allow people to cause panic.

Maybe we need to implement that and make people responsible for the things they say.

For instance: if a person gets placed on parole and then goes out and commits a crime, the people on the parole board should be held accountable. After all, by letting the person out of prison they are stating that they believe the public is in no danger. Is that a stretch? Well, look at it this way: aren't they accomplices to a crime?

What if it was made clear that if anyone - politicians included - were to make statements, especially those that create panic (see those at the top of this article for examples), they will be held responsible if they DON'T come to pass?

The Bible tells us that you can tell a false prophet by the fact that what they profess does not come to pass (and therefore should be punished - see Jeremiah 14:15)

And that includes the panic induced behind the statements of climate change criers.

Oh, and to correctly quote Justice Holmes, Jr.: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger . . . "

To all of you Chicken Littles out there: be warned. Your #MeToo-type moment is coming!

©Emittravel 2019

Unpredictable Predictability

My wife and I purchased a scooter a few years ago. I'm not talking the kind the kids ride around on (my leg gets REALLY tired trying to keep it moving - how DO they do that?!?), and I'm not talking about those nifty ones you can find at your local Wal-Mart (they really need to attach bells to those darn things!). I'm talking about a 2009 Kymco Grand Vista scooter.

A wonderful ride. The thing got between 65 and 70 miles per gallon, and I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - without my wife on it (she wouldn't go near a freeway) - until I saw that I was going just over 70 mph and QUICKLY slowed down!

Last year we sold it and purchased a 2009 Honda Shadow.

Another wonderful ride. Not sure of the top speed, but I've had it just over 70 mph on the freeway - WITH my wife on it (had to take the turnpike home one time).

I'm fortunate to have two great rides: the motorcycle and a 2004 Jeep Wrangler. Both vehicles are great for sunny days - only one is good in foul weather. I'll let you figure out which.

Which brings me to the topic of this particular blog entry: the unpredictable predictability of the weather. One day last fall, I had taken the Shadow to work because the weather had been predicted as only a 10% chance of rain that day. Understand, that means historically, with similar weather conditions, it only rained 10% of the time. 90% of the time that weather didn't happen. Sometime close to the end of the work day I called my wife to let her know that that 10% had turned into 100%!! I rode home in pouring rain; including through quite a few areas of standing water. When I got home I took my boots off and poured water out of them.

Is it me, or has the weather become more unpredictable over time? Technology has definitely improved, but there seems to be a disconnect between the available data and the way it gets interpreted. Some would say it's "Global Warming" (or the new, cop-out label: "Climate Change"), but that's difficult to believe. For the record, when they say "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", what they mean to say is "Man-made Global Warming" or "Man-made Climate Change". As I made the argument in "Man-made Global Warming? Mother Nature Disagrees!", if it was natural weather cycles or "natural" occurrences, it wouldn't be a hot topic (pun intended). Back in the 1970s we were told of an inevitable ice age around the corner due to "Global Cooling". Clearly, they have NO idea what they are talking about. Aren't both U.S. coastlines supposed to be underwater by now?

I can understand "Climate Change" being so difficult to predict. There's an awful lot of data there to work through. But can't they at least get today's weather close? And don't start telling me how different the two "sciences" are - they both use a lot of the same data (including tidal shifts, water flows, air currents, etc.).

And on the flip side, if today's weather is so difficult to predict, how in the heck are they supposed to understand anything so long-term as "Climate Change" - or the 10-day forecast for that matter!

C'mon! I just want to know if I can ride the Shadow, or if I need to take the Jeep - WITH the top up ...

© Emittravel 2013